Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rant (3rd nomination)

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 merge and redirect to Monologue#Rant. A redirect to a different target is not GFDL compatible, unfortunately, but a hatnote can be added to Monologue if editors deem this necessary. Non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Poorly written dictdef. Already deleted twice and subsequently recreated; if admins find the previous pages were substantially the same could this be speedied? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If deleted, recreate as soft redirect to wikt:rant as a plausible search for a dictionary definition. -- saberwyn 04:49, 30 April 2008 (UTC) redirect to the disambiguation page, or move the dabpage to this ___location. -- saberwyn 05:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It turns out there's actually a rant (disambiguation) page. It might be better to redirect there. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is nothing wrong with it except it missing a few citations, and that can easily be fixed. Smartguy777 (talk) 07:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
• Speedy delete G4, since it's been deleted twice through AfD. With that done, move the disambig page there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't tag it earlier, will do so now. I'm not sure if it's close enough to the previous version to G4; we'll see. JeremyMcCracken (talk)(contribs) 18:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • reply - It's nothing like the prior deleted versions. We'll have to judge this one on its own merits. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, with that in mind, delete to move the disambig page to this name. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per JeremyMcCracken. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Monologue. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as the Colonel suggests. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is there a particular reason why several articles other than Rant are listed in the AFD box? 23skidoo (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely sure; I think what happened was I used {{subst:afd}} instead of {{afd}} and that this caused strange things to happen. I R noob. TallNapoleon (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to rant (disambiguation). That page already has a concise definition, and a link to Wiktionary.  Frank  |  talk  11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion was previously closed as follows: "The result was Merge (non-admin closure). Merged contents with with Monologue#Rant and redirected Rant to rant (disambiguation) . SilkTork *^YES! 19:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)". I have undone this closure in accordance with Wikipedia:DPR#NAC because, as that policy states, "close calls and controversial or ambiguous decisions should be left to an administrator." In this case, the "keep" consensus and the merge target, if any, are not clear enough for a non-administrator to determine. Sandstein (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• redirect to rant (disambiguation), to help readers who look for other meanings. The disambiguation page points to the section "rant" in the wider context of monologue, which I think is very appropriate. Sourced content of the current rant can be merged to "monologue". --The very model of a minor general (talk) 20:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Monologue. Incidentally, merging to one article and redirecting to another is probably not compatible with the GFDL. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge contents to Monologue#Rant and redirect Rant to rant (disambiguation). The valid contents have already been merged to Monologue#Rant, with an appropriate link to Rant to comply with GFDL. The "title" Rant is redirected to a disamb page which provides a link to Monologue#Rant. This meets the general consensus of the previous and current discussion, as well as complying with GFDL requirements to retain links to the history of contributions. The community are indicating they wish the title Rant to go to the disamb page, while the contents they are indicating they wish to be moved to Monologue or at least saved in some form. What is clear is that only one person wished the article to remain as it was, and there was no consensus for a delete. I have done several of these merges closures and I thought that while the solution might be seen by some to be perhaps over elegant, it was not hard to follow and my actions appropriate. However, if people feel I have acted inappropriately in this, it might be as well to review my other non admin closures. If anybody is interested I will provide a list of those I have done. SilkTork *^YES! 21:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article should be kept where it is, and a disambiguation notice should be placed at the top. I feel this article should not be deleted, as ranting is a cultural phenomenon, and it can in some cases be quite different from a monologue; not all monologues are rants. This article could do with expansion, and cleanup, rather than deletion, and these are the arguments for it being kept. If this article is kept it should be less like a dictionary definition, and more about the social and cultural aspects of ranting. --1qx (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge contents to Monologue#Rant and redirect Rant to rant (disambiguation) as per SilkTork. Conceivably, this could have its own article, as per User:1qx, but this would require substantial references differentiating it from monologue. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:47, 12 May 2008 (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.