. This is now mentioned in the article in natural way, so the nominator's initial concern has been addressed. --BDD (talk) 01:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = DOAB }} → :Open-access monograph (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=DOAB&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-08-24&end=2019-09-22&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=DOAB stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:DOAB|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#DOAB closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:DOAB|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#DOAB closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:DOAB|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#DOAB closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
I'm not sure it's appropriate to redirect from an acronym to an article that does not use said acronym and only mentions the referent of the acronym in the external links section, particularly when Doab is an existing article. I would lean toward deletion for this redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 21:28, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
:Keep: You could push for that but it should be noted that there are such articles in other Wikipedias, e.g., namely: :ca:DOAB which represent {{wde|Q21750281}}. I created the redirect because is a common abbreviation for a well-known organization (I created Directory of Open Access Books at the same time). I do not think the redirect hurts anything and someday someone might actually write the pertinent article (which you are welcome to do instead of lobbying for the removal of harmless content). It should also be noted we have {{wde|P5062}}, a Wikidata property related to this topic and a Google search for {{Google|DOAB}} has Directory of Open Access Books as the first hit and then Doab (that you mentioned above; if that is any measure of notability). Uzume (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
::The general consensus (as codified in WP:R#DELETE #10) is that if there's little-to-no information about that subject at the target, it's better to delete it to encourage the creation of an article. signed, Rosguill talk 01:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Clearly this is a discussion for a different time and place, however, I fail to see how deleting a redirect encourages anyone to write an article (and it seems like it would discourage anonymous IP users that cannot create items in article space anyway) whether the redirect target contains much material on the subject or not. In fact, when I want to know more about something and I find an article entry that is a redirect and it seems to point at something that contains a brief comment or small section about the item, that makes me want to create the article and flesh out the topic so your logic (and apparently some consensus logic) seems inverted by my way of thinking (of course it is possible there is some rampant way of thinking going around that I am not privy to). I find it hard to search for something that does not exist. If I find a redirect, I know someone else knows about the topic but has not created a complete article on the topic for some reason. I find it easier to consider the merits of creating a complete article when I know what other information in our other articles already exists on the topic (perhaps it lacks notability or reliable references are difficult to research, etc.; hopefully it is just a sign that there have not been enough interested editors about). In any event, I am not sure how your comments apply to an abbreviation (and acronym) to a prospective article (unless you think people would be more inclined to write DOAB over Directory of Open Access Books for some reason—I would tend to think the opposite despite the existence of :ca:DOAB). Uzume (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
::::{{Re|Uzume}} I wrote User:Wugapodes/Better as a redlink to explain why redlinks are important, and it might give you more context on why WP:RDELETE 10 exists. You raise really good points and it can be a balancing act between when a red link or redirect is better. I agree with you that in this case a redirect is better than a red link, but there isn't a one-size-fits all answer. Wug·a·po·des 23:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
:::::I appreciate the feedback and I am aware of the value of redlinks. I agree this is better as a redirect (or I would not have made it in the first place). I believe in this case the consensus of WP:R#KEEP #4, #5, #6 & #7 apply (at least as I read them). I like to think I know something about redirects being a WP:PMR for a few years (but review and feedback is always welcome). Uzume (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep and tag with {{tlg|R avoided double redirect|Directory of Open Access Books}} and {{tl|R from acronym}}. Wug·a·po·des 07:42, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
- If you are going to consider this, you should also consider {{no redirect|1=OAPEN}} which is similarly represented (both acronyms to something that is redirected to Open-access monograph and thus also redirected to the same target to avoid double redirection). Also Open Book Publishers currently uses DOAB and if deleted would return to a redlink. Uzume (talk) 19:02, 11 October 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.
