Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hometowned

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 was delete. Soft redirecting after close MBisanz ^talk 13:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hometowned

This entry is a dictionary definition with no chance of expansion into an article. It's not NPOV either because it assumes lawyers are judged on their person rather than their arguments in a court case. Mgm|^(talk) 13:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to wiktionary. I agree it'll never be more than a dicdef, and I'll redirect now.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect per S Marshall. --Explodicle (T/C) 21:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Soft Redirect ditto. I started this, but there's not much to go on anywhere in the internet. the term is about JUDGES being NPOV. The term itself is about a lawyer being discriminated. Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 04:10, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the word is commonly used enough to require a soft-redirect. If we did that for every word, Wikipedia would become a dictionary. - Mgm|^(talk) 14:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty common practice even with rare words, that's why we have this template. So long as the actual definition isn't here, it meets WP:NOTDICDEF. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page on soft redirects is too vague. It doesn't explain when to use and not to use it. I can understand why someone would want to make a soft redirect from Wikipedia-space to meta, but personally I don't see how soft-redirects can be properly applied without violating WP:WINAD. Besides, if you take a random non-existing page like Grolic you can see there's already template there that allows searching on all projects under the sun with Wiktionary top of the list. Basically, the search facility and empty page display have both improved to the point, I no longer feel the {{wi}} templates are neccesary. = Mgm|^(talk) 23:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The same rules that apply to redirects apply to soft redirects; when deciding whether or not to keep them you'd use the redirect criteria. It seems useful to me, and I don't really see how a soft redirect hurts anything. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no entry in wiktionary about this, so the soft redirect links to nothing. Either this need to be transferred to wiktionary, left as it is or deleted and forgotten about. I personally prefer the the fist two over total deletion.

Ok, I just created the wiktionary entry. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.