. There's a definite consensus against the existence of this specific title, which is long, clumsy, misleading and an unlikely search term. There's also a valid argument regarding preservation of history for attribution purposes, and the suggestion via MJL and Knowledgekid87 to simply move this redirect to a different, more harmless, and reasonable search term solves both problems and has not encountered any visible objections or concerns in this discussion. ~ mazca talk 16:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
No target location in article, long and nonsensical title. Aspenkiddo (talk) 00:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
:I agree with deleting it. In addition to being verbose and clumsy, the title also strikes me as misleading. There is very clear harm done by anti-vaccine groups' rhetoric. I would also question how the term "vaccine critic" is being used. If this is being used for legitimate criticisms of actual shortcomings/areas for improvement in vaccines, that's one thing, but I could easily see that terminology being inappropriately applied to anti-vaccine groups that refuse to be labeled as such. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
:: 'vaccine critic' is weasel words specifically chosen, used and introduced here by anti-vaccinationists, in order to camouflage their resolute and irrational opposition to efforts to reduce mortality and morbidity by immunisation in general. Anti-vaccinationist is a better term for people who oppose vaccination, and it would be sensible to replace the weasel words here and everywhere. If you have a taste for history, go and look through the history of the article I started years ago, and called "Antivaccinationism" You'll see it got saveged and redirected. antivaccinationism Midgley (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
:: each of these faults above has been caused by antivaccinationists continuing to sabotage articles about the phenomenon, the actions, and the causes. It is sensible to change titles back or to better titles, it is not sensible to respond to a fault introduced into the title by deleting the text. Keeping, merging elsewhere, turning it into an article with for instance the Measles deaths in Samoa in the current weeks also referred to are far more sensible. Midgley (talk) 16:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
:* Delete Confusing, and poor wording, and I agree with TylerDurden8823 ---Avatar317(talk) 00:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}Relisting comment: Reopened per
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 November 20 in part for procedural reasons and in part because it's not clear whether the page history is needed for attribution purposes - it might be that content at
Vaccine hesitancy originates from here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- {{s|Temporary keep}} Comment per the work done by administrator {{u|Tavix}}, editor {{u|Geolodus}}, and the further work uncovered by editor {{u|S Marshall}} and myself at the deletion review discussion in which there are concerns related to attribution from this redirect that were not properly transcribed over to Vaccine hesitancy through a proper history merge. Related redirects to this one include Harm done by anti-vaccinationists successes and Anti-vaccinationists/Harm done by successes, which will also need to be fully examined and properly merged. Recommend at least two senior Wikipedia administrators shepherd this WP:HISTMERGE, in addition to any willing editors that wish to be involved, so as they can make the determination as to when to properly re-nominate these redirects for deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 22:32, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- How interesting to see WP:ATT bluelinked from here. Did {{u|Dmehus|you}} mean to link that historical discussion? The attribution requirements are actually in the [https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en#3._Content_We_Host Terms of Use], point 7.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
::{{u|S Marshall}}, I'm not quite sure exactly. Perhaps {{u|Tavix}} can clarify as he or she specifically mentioned that...oh wait, nevermind, Tavix mentioned WP:MAD, which I assumed was because of attribution requirements? Do you know what the WP:MAD issue might be, {{u|S Marshall}}? Doug Mehus T·C 23:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
:::Sure. Wikipedia's terms of use require us to give people credit for their contributions. Normally we do that by way of the article history, so you can see a list of revisions and the usernames of the contributors who made them. Nowadays we sometimes loosely call this "attribution". In this specific case there's suspicion that some of the content could have been cut and pasted from one article to another -- which has the side effect of wiping off the usernames of the people who wrote the content. It's fixed by an administrator reconstructing the article history. This used to be a complex and difficult task although nowadays there are automated tools that help them do that.
Separately, and historically, there was a rather well-thought-out proposal to revise our sourcing policies and guidelines that nearly-but-not-quite gained consensus. That too was called attribution but it was to do with sources and references not creator contributions. WP:ATT points to that old proposal, not to anything to do with article contribution history reconstruction. Hope this makes sense—S Marshall T/C 00:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
- Redirect Tortuous concept that belongs, if anywhere, in the context of the proposed target article. Alexbrn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
:*Where would you like this to be redirected? Geolodus (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
::* Vaccine hesitancy per the nom. I would also be okay with deletion. Alexbrn (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
::::I would be okay with a retarget of all the redirects to Vaccine hesitancy proposed by {{u|Alexbrn}}, but I still think we should properly complete a destination talkpage history merge in the event these are summarily re-nominated for deletion. Doug Mehus T·C 16:27, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete. It isn't a helpful search term. {{smh}} –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)Delete per Tyler. Don't redirect per MJL. – Levivich 18:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)- Move without redirect per discussion below. Thanks for the ping, now that I understand the history/attribution issues, I agree moving to a more helpful search term (Vaccine debate works for me) without leaving a redirect behind is the right solution. – Levivich 16:26, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Comment to {{u|MJL}} and {{u|Levivich}}, Tyler wasn't involved in the extensive deletion review discussion and the need for a history merge to take place, for Wikipedia attribution purposes, prior to this unhelpful redirect being deleted. Doug Mehus T·C 14:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- :{{re|Dmehus}} If attribution is absolutely required, then the solution would be to move without leaving a redirect to a more helpful search term (like {{u|Knowledgekid87}}'s suggestion of Vaccine debate) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
:::{{re|MJL}} Ah, thanks. Yes, then at least the page history for this redirect would be moved. I thought we'd have to do a manual talkpage history preservation. I'd support this proposal noted by {{u|MJL}}. At any rate, this RfD should be closed as an administrator, or at least an editor with page mover permissions. --Doug Mehus T·C 14:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
::::@{{u|Dmehus|Doug Mehus}}: Solving complex solutes with creative solutions that gets us through our nightmarish bureaucratic process is my middle name! {{wink}} –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
:*Move to Vaccine debate without leaving a redirect then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- I appreciate the ping. Delete per the reasoning expressed in the DRV.--WaltCip (talk) 14:42, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
:*Or move without redirect, I suppose. That accomplishes essentially the same effect.--WaltCip (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Move without leaving a redirect to more helpful Vaccine debate, per {{u|MJL}} and {{u|Knowledgekid87}}, the latter of which at deletion review in order to preserve history identified by administrator {{u|Tavix}} and editors {{u|S Marshall}}, {{u|Geolodus}}, and {{u|Midgley}} (also at DRV). Doug Mehus T·C 14:53, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete as per original nominator User:Aspenkiddo that the title is long and confusing, and it isn't clear who the term is alleging is done what to whom. Redirects are cheap, but they don't need to be kept if they are useless and stupid. The fate of this redirect should not be conflated with a debate over the title of the article, which should be a Move Discussion. Let this run for 7 days, kill the stupid redirect, and then discuss the title of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
::{{rto|Robert McClenon}}, the problem, though, as I understand it is {{u|Midgley}} and others have contributed to the current redirect target's article by way of original contributions to this redirect. Thus, their contributions are not being properly attributed by way of the editor history on the target article page. So, that's why I think we strongly need to move Alleged harm done by vaccine critics' successes to something more helpful (i.e., Vaccine debate) rather than an outright "delete". Doug Mehus T·C 15:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Delete not a plausible search term. SportingFlyer T·C 22:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
::Question for {{u|SportingFlyer}}, as I understand it, Vaccine hesitancy had contributions to it, some significant or quasi-significant, by editor {{u|Midgley}}, which aren't being attributed. I agree that this long redirect is an implausible search term, but would you, secondarily or as a second choice, support moving (without a redirect) to Vaccine debate or some other target per WP:ATT? (I ask only in case you'd not seen the whole discussion.) --Doug Mehus T·C 22:55, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- Move without leaving a redirect to Vaccine debate (or a similar title) as above. It will, at least temporarily, solve the attribution problem, while also removing a title that is indeed clumsy and unhelpful. ComplexRational (talk) 23:23, 5 December 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.
