Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shitty Asshole

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:38, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Shitty Asshole[edit]

Duplicate of the shitty asshole. See that page's entry for previous discussion. Andrewa 11:40, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've set this to redirect to the shitty asshole pending the outcome of that page's VfD. If it is deleted then this page should be deleted as well. I will copy this note onto that VfD page as well. Thryduulf 12:35, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not opposed to this action, it seems commonsense to me, but a little curious... is there any policy supporting it? If not, do we need one perhaps? Andrewa 17:13, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - Comment: I don't know whether its policy or not, now you mention it. If it isn't then I would certainly vote for one. I should probably have added that if the above VfD results in a keep vote, then this article should be (imho) left as a redirect to it. I don't see the point in a separate VfD for a duplicate artcile. (see also wikipedia:votes for deletion/Joshua Claybourne regards Josh Claybourne) Thryduulf 17:29, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  - I don't really think we need a policy. Anyone can make a redirect, and this certainly is a case where a redirect is needed. If the target page gets deleted, it only makes sense that redirects to that page are deleted. -Rholton 17:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    - Comment: No. It may seem obvious but it's not that simple at all. The complication is that redirects often have significant history. In this case it doesn't, but it's not safe to assume that just because an article is deleted, all redirects to it will or should be deleted as well. See redirects for deletion, there's quite a lot there and there are sound reasons for not bypassing this procedure. Andrewa 19:01, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      - Thanks, Andrewa. You are exactly correct, and I over-stated in my comment. I was only thinking of the case where there are two new identical articles created, as appears to be the case here. -Rholton 05:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        Agree. Andrewa 15:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Delete, I really dont think this needs a redirect. I have voted delete previously on these duplicate articles. Megan1967 01:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
- Comment: I think the consensus above is that assuming the vote is to delete the shitty asshole then this goes too, without needing further

discussion. Andrewa 15:04, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.