Talk:CheckUser

I propose that this article be merged into CheckUser, this article is unique. It is the only user group on the encyclopedia to have an article on it, however this article more or less repeats what is on the Wikipedia page and doesn't provide anything substantial. It is for this reason I propose that this article be merged into the Wikipedia:CheckUser page. DotesConks (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

:Also WP:OVERLAP. DotesConks (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

• Nonsense. One's a process page and the other's an encyclopdia article. We don't send readers to technical pages. And note WP:HERE too. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• There's pretty much nothing to merge. Wikipedia:CheckUser is a policy, where words matter, and I don't see anything that needs adding from here. This is really a discussion to restore the CNR redirect. We should link the previous RfD discussion - examples of sending "readers to technical pages" exist. The alternative is to redirect to another article. I'm a bit indifferent about the whole thing, except to oppose a merge. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Ah, I did not know there was a previous RfD discussion. Thanks for letting me know @Zzuuzz. DotesConks (talk) 18:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
• I suspect that, as of at least 17:16 today, User:Bbb23 also opposes a merge :) Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 17:22, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

::: Oppose per above. This isn't going to fly. PhilKnight (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Archive bottom}}

I was surprised to see the existence of this article. It does not seem like the topic meets WP:GNG. All of the sources that the article cites are about various topics relating to Wikipedia generally—but none are actually about the CheckUser tool specifically. In order to meet WP:GNG, we need to see significant coverage that {{tq|addresses the topic directly and in detail}} and is {{tq|more than a trivial mention}}, but here I suspect that we are citing sources that make trivial mentions to the CheckUser tool as part of broader analyses of Wikipedia's culture and community. I would probably merge whatever content might be relevant here into various other places like Criticism of Wikipedia and Wikipedia administrators, and then maybe redirect this article to one of those. Mz7 (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2025 (UTC)