RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Milo

Milo | Result: Reverted to DG's original purpose—redirect to some guy he's interested in and I've never heard of.

Milo (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. What a horrible idea. A bunch of links to some other website, and an opportunity to do the same for every other name in the book. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
2. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 07:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
3. Collection of unmissonal links. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

   If you misspelled "un-Masonal" then you'd be correct. If that's not the case, however... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:14, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

4. --JorisEnter (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
5. Utterly dumb, and I considered AfDing this myself. And what AH said.---Mona- (talk) 19:16, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
6. Delete, as per above. Bongolian (talk) 20:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

   Still not sure what all the buzz is about. A fork page should be deleted because it has some extra info, WP links standing in for not-yet-extant RW articles and a bit of humour in it? People sure have some weird quality standards for fork pages then (or maybe how quality standards for fork pages are suddenly a thing the moment it becomes more than a bland page with 2-3 links is what's so weird). >.> 142.124.55.236 (talk) 03:18, 12 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Keep

1. Makes no sense to delete it for a simple redirect when the word "Milo" means more than just the guy who writes for Brietbart. Plus this wiki would be incomplete without a mention of the best beverage. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 06:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
2. I think having fork pages listing among other things missional subjects that don't have articles yet (and optionally with informative WP links) isn't a bad idea. Though perhaps the {{wpl}} template should indicate more clearly that it's likely desirable for us to have our own article on the linked subject instead of us having to link to Wikipedia. As for oh-noes-people-will-make-fork-pages-for-all-names-now; this seems both a non-issue to me (assuming it were to come true to any extent at all) as well as a faulty argument based on an unlikely slippery slope. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 06:24, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

   Literally none of the links are even missional. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

   Either you're pulling my leg or you've got an exceedingly narrow view of missionality... 142.124.55.236 (talk) 10:08, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

   Not pulling your leg. Some of the politicians might be missional, but I don't see any missional content on wikipedia (at a glance). Carpetsmoker (talk) 10:34, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

   Well, some of those WP articles are rather on the small side. But looking at Đukanović's political career, there's bound to be something smelly hiding beneath that charismatic veneer: Et voilà! 142.124.55.236 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Merge/redirect

• I created it as a redirect to the only Milo we have an article on for my convenience, Carpetsmoker deleted it because ... something. Redirect it back there, at least I'll find it useful - David Gerard (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

So long as we find a way to mention best beverage. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 19:19, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no problem with a page titled "Milo" working as a page titled "Andy" or "Ed" would've back in the day. Peace. AgingHippie (talk) 20:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

IMHO these sort of redirects are more in the way more than helpful; it shows up in the search results & auto-complete without any indication that it's a redirect Carpetsmoker (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a reason to change our search auto-complete to exclude redirects, not to delete any specific redirects. 142.124.55.236 (talk) 04:57, 12 January 42016 AQD (UTC)

Yeah; that would indeed be the better solution; the best would probably be mentioning it's a redirect and to what. It's something I would investigate (and possible write a patch for) if RW received regular updates. As it stands, we have to deal with what we've got. Carpetsmoker (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not presently misleading 'cos there's presently precisely one Milo article. If there's a second one we'll have something to disambiguate - David Gerard (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

But you don't know that it both refers to the same page until you click on it. Carpetsmoker (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Make the article entirely about the drink

1. The one true option. - Kitsunelaine ^{「Beware. The foxgirls are coming.」} 05:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)