--BDD (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Inspired by a comment I saw made by both User:Rosguill and User:Wugapodes, I'm proposing to delete this redirect as per point #10 of WP:R#DELETE. The redirect was created from a non-existent page and currently redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada. There are two problems with this, though, in that in Template:Canadian banks, which I like to maintain regularly, that template is added to the footer of every page. Many banks and credit unions that aren't WP:Notable are still listed in that template as redlinked banks, to encourage article creation and to provide reader context. If we have a redirect, instead of deleting the page, which redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada, the user clicks through from the template to the list. While not a double redirect, per se, it's just not helpful. I've created a soft redirect temporarily, but, at the same time, by letting these redirects for non-existent pages stand, we may be aiding circumventing the new page creation review process in that there would be only a substantial change to an existing page. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:27, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- :Added comment Note also that point #6 of WP:R#DELETE may apply here as well since, although the target is not in a pseudo-namespace, this redirects affects the usability and navigability in a pseudo-namespace Wikipedia template for the added point cited above. --Doug Mehus (talk) 14:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
- If the banks are not notable the redirect should be kept. Deleting redirects in favor of red links is only useful if we think the topic is already notable and no one has written the article yet. If it's not notable then we should prefer a redirect with {{tl|R with possibilities}} so that, if it becomes notable, we know to create an article there. This is because, regardless of templates, having a redirect helps readers find the article, helps google take them to the correct page, and makes it easier to link. If there's no correct target, we may get a bunch of slightly different redlinks and wind up with two or three different articles that need merged. A soft redirect just so a template link works is an inconvenience for readers who now have to click to go to helpful content. I don't really care about AfC, and I'm definitely not going to suggest making the encyclopedia less useful just to add needless bureaucracy. If a new editor makes an article from the redirect, it gets put into the new pages feed which is enough of a check. I'd say keep both as regular redirects unless the topics are definitely notable. Wug·a·po·des 16:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|Wugapodes}}, Thanks for the reply. In the former, DirectCash Bank is now an indirect wholly-owned subsidiary of Cardtronics, albeit an indirect one, so if that has an article, I'd maybe favour redirecting that there. In the case of General Bank of Canada, it doesn't get a lot of, if any, press coverage, so while it's not notable now, it could be in the future, potentially. I like that {{tl|R with possibilities}} template better. Any way it could appear above the redirect and act as a sort of soft redirect? General Bank of Canada gets an insignificant amount of hits, so for the half dozen or dozen monthly hits it gets, it's not a significant inconvenience.
::{{u|Wugapodes}}, {{tl|r to list entry}} with the printworthy tag may also be a better option as well, potentially as a soft-redirect. Doug Mehus (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
:::{{re|Dmehus}} I'm very against soft redirects for pointers to content; an unnecessary click is still unnecessary. Would you mind explaining what you think the benefit to readers is? You seem sold on the idea of a soft redirect and maybe I'm just not familiar enough with this topic to see it. Wug·a·po·des 05:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
::::{{re|Wugapodes}} Well, the thinking is that redlinks would encourage article creation. DirectCash Bank is potentially notable as it does have direct-to-consumer operations. General Bank of Canada just deals in the mortgage and deposit broker space, so has no realistic prospect of notability. It is an non-noteworthy bank. Arguably, these redirects, especially the latter, shouldn't have been created in the first place. I suspect they were created by an editor who direct typed their names into Wikipedia and didn't like always hitting a page saying no article exists. My preference would just be for a delete here. Any way I can arm twist you into supporting that here for point # 10? Doug Mehus (talk) 05:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- {{u|BDD}}, In absence of serious opposition, I propose just to delete them. They are extremely low used and have never been associated with a named article. As cheap as redirects are, they can just as easily be re-added.Doug Mehus (talk) 00:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Wugapodes. The entire point of redirect is to get reader to the content they are looking for. Even a list entry can be helpful. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 19:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per Wugapodes and Fiamh. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - Wugapodes' reasoning makes perfect sense. -- Whpq (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
- Point of Order/Procedural Objection - I wish to note that the above-cited rationale is in direct contravention to the established consensus that established point # 10 of WP:R#DELETE. The whole point of redlinks is to encourage article creation. If these are notable banks, and, at present, they do not appear to be, we want to encourage articles to be created. If they aren't notable banks, as a matter of long-standing practice, we don't normally create redirects to existing lists for non-notable banks. These redirects were likely added by a single user who likely prefers to directly type the names of banks (notable or not) into his or her web browser's address bar. If we made redirects for every non-notable organization to a list, we'd have a lot more redirects here. There is absolutely no procedural basis for keeping these non-helpful redirects, especially when you consider their extremely low use in the past 12 months (preceding this month when usage would've spiked following these pages' nomination). Doug Mehus (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
::That is a reason that a redirect may be nominated for a deletion. It does not say that the redirect must be deleted. In fact, the WP:R#DELETE states right at the start "You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):" (emphasis added). Now skip down to the exceptions and have a look at WP:RKEEP point 7. -- Whpq (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
:::{{u|Whpq}} Thanks for your thoughtful and explanatory reply, and believe me, I did consider the reason at WP:RKEEP #7, even without having actually realized that that rationale was codified at that policy point. To me, this seems to contradict WP:RDELETE point # 10—seemingly a point of contradiction of apparently increasing commonality with respect to Wikipedia policies to the extent that consensus then becomes not about the stronger argument but the number of !votes for one policy point over the other despite this notionally being an oft-repeated WP:NOTVOTE refrain.
:::Alas, I digress...I guess I balanced WP:RKEEP point # 7 versus WP:RDELETE point # 10 on the premise that WP:RDELETE point # 10 would then require any potential articles to pass the new page review process, which is, arguably, a more stringent standard than the PageTriage recent changes review log process. Doug Mehus (talk) 19:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
: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.
