- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Moot. Deletion is not being contemplated. Moves can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 18:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Shag River ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per
WP:ONEOTHER; this page should be deleted and redirected to
Waihemo / Shag River as the primary topic for this River.
Looking at pageviews, we see that Waihemo / Shag River receives over ten times the views of Shag River (Fiordland), demonstrating that it is primary by usage.
It also appears to be primary by long term significance; a search on Google News and Google Scholar shows that the vast majority of results are for the river in Otago. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- A redirect does not require deleting an edit history first, and could have been done with 1⁄3 the number of edits that an AFD nomination takes. This is not an appropriate use of
Articles for deletion.
Uncle G (
talk)
10:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify, I intended to propose a redirect; I agree that the edit history doesn't need to be deleted.
However, AfD can be used to propose redirects; I expected that if I made this boldly it would be reverted or otherwise objected to and so I wanted to get consensus for it, and this is the appropriate venue for that. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, that would be Talk:Shag River. You are utterly wasting people's time, everyone who even looks at this, with a simple disambiguation fix that you could have just done. Uncle G ( talk)
- To clarify, I intended to propose a redirect; I agree that the edit history doesn't need to be deleted.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Moot. Deletion is not being contemplated. Moves can be handled editorially. Star Mississippi 18:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Shag River ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per
WP:ONEOTHER; this page should be deleted and redirected to
Waihemo / Shag River as the primary topic for this River.
Looking at pageviews, we see that Waihemo / Shag River receives over ten times the views of Shag River (Fiordland), demonstrating that it is primary by usage.
It also appears to be primary by long term significance; a search on Google News and Google Scholar shows that the vast majority of results are for the river in Otago. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal ( talk) 03:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disambiguations and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- A redirect does not require deleting an edit history first, and could have been done with 1⁄3 the number of edits that an AFD nomination takes. This is not an appropriate use of
Articles for deletion.
Uncle G (
talk)
10:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- To clarify, I intended to propose a redirect; I agree that the edit history doesn't need to be deleted.
However, AfD can be used to propose redirects; I expected that if I made this boldly it would be reverted or otherwise objected to and so I wanted to get consensus for it, and this is the appropriate venue for that. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:11, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
- No, that would be Talk:Shag River. You are utterly wasting people's time, everyone who even looks at this, with a simple disambiguation fix that you could have just done. Uncle G ( talk)
- To clarify, I intended to propose a redirect; I agree that the edit history doesn't need to be deleted.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.