The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Redirect to Terry Pratchett.

Dr Zen is correct in pointing out on the talk page that this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion however the subject is still not notable. She has done nothing of note other than be the daughter of a famous writer. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 04:20, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Whoops, my apologies for the speedy. All right then, Delete, because there is no indication in this (extraordinarily feeble) "article" that the subject is of any noteworthiness. -- Hoary 05:16, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• It's not patent nonsense, but I think it qualifies for speedy on the basis of 'little useful information'. DJ Clayworth 06:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• She's a writer in her own right (too many rights going on there, never mind), although not a particularly distinguished one. I have no strong opinion on whether she should be kept. Dr Zen 06:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I would have just made it a redirect to Terry Pratchett and left it at that, no need to take it to vfd imo. Shane King 07:03, Dec 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, I was bold and did that (nothing prevents working on an article while it is discussed). Does it not work with the banner? Or did I do it wrongly?Dr Zen 07:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• She's (or she was, not sure) a journalist on a UK magazine, if memory serves, but probably not intrinsically notable for it. Delete, keep a short bio on TP's page, and it can later be broken back out if needed or if she appears in another context. Shimgray 14:01, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't harm to have a redirect, surely? The name's not needed for anyone else after all. Dr Zen 00:40, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • No, but please don't take actions like this without due process. I'm not going to revert that, but please practice what you preach. Alphax (talk) 05:16, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)
      • The due process for making a redirect is to go ahead and do it, friend. It's perfectly acceptable to edit articles that are going through this process. If it gets deleted, I won't re-create it. Dr Zen 05:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
        • That strikes me as so much cant, Zen. Whereas it is unambiguously acceptable to edit an article under vfd, it is not clear that it is acceptable to change it to a redirect, for at least the following reasons: a) because users at vfd will not see the article that a deletion was sought for and b) because redirects are dealt with at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion not at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Given that you've spent the last few hours upbraiding people for misuse of speedy, for you to decide arbitrarily that it is fine to dispose of a vfd by redirecting gives the impression that you;re prepared to cut yourself a whole lot more slack than you give others. FWIW, your use of the word "friend" merely grates. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I believe creating a redirect is absolutely standard editing. As for your reasons for thinking not: a/ there is no requirement for users to see the article that the lister saw -- it's conventional that they vote on what's there (sometimes they even change their votes if their original reasons no longer apply) and b/ so what? List it there too if it bothers you so much. Your argument about speedies is a straw man. I have not disposed of the VfD. It is still here. The article is still there. If a consensus wants it deleted, it'll get deleted. I have not changed the process in any way. I'm sorry that you don't want to be friends but I expect I'll get by. Dr Zen 05:55, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, I agree, if her own work hasn't reached the level of notablility, this should become a redirect. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:24, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)

May I chime in for a second time at this point, to say that while every contribution to the discussion so far has been admirably sane and courteous (a big contrast with, say, the "Sollog" kerfuffle), the amount of energy spent on it is intercoursing ridiculous? Anyone wanting to write a new article should say, even if ever so briefly and imperfectly, what's notable about the subject. This writer didn't. He or she then left the matter for careful deliberation by people whose time would have been much better spent elsewhere on Wikipedia (let alone outside Wikipedia). Please see the deletion page for "Elbert bill"; I there suggested (at the outset) that such non-articles should be put out of their misery at birth: people shouldn't have to spend time on Google (etc.) in order to judge notability, truthfulness, etc. Unless I misunderstand, zapping a crappy article doesn't prevent somebody from writing a better article on the same subject at some later time. (This is after all what happens when a new article is a copyvio.) So again, I suggest zapping this article and anything like it on the grounds of a combination of more than one damning factor (here, utter uninterestingness and a complete lack of demonstration of notability), aggravated by the certain expenditure of time that a Vfd leads to. -- Hoary 10:33, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Added some information. That's about as much as I know. I met her once, she was nice. Anyway, abstain.--Tomheaton 14:20, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I was bold and removed it. I'm for deleting this article if that's the size of it.Dr Zen 23:19, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I was bold and added the info (what little there was) to Terry Pratchett. My guess is that she will deserve an article at some point in the future. Keep as redirect The Steve 06:58, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
• It's absurd to keep redirecting it when someone (me, as it happens) has taken the trouble to add more information. The entry either gets deleted or not. There's no point redirecting it to Terry Pratchett. It's not a page about Terry Pratchett. Please stop the redirects until the entry has been voted on. Someone else may come along with more information that can establish notability - but it's difficult to do so if a redirect has happened.--Tomheaton 10:30, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep as a redirect. Keep the one-liner in the Terry Pratchett article, but unwikilink Rhianna's name there so long as her article is only a redirect. JamesMLane 22:24, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect to Terry Pratchett as said by many previously. violet/riga (t) 00:06, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Redirect. RadicalSubversiv E 00:51, 20 Dec 2004 (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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.