Talk:Anonymity application

Concerning speedy deletion

I think this article meets the criteria listed at WP:A3; this article is essentially just a see also block and an introductory sentence. Moreover, it's been that way since 2009, with no references, no attempt to add references, etc. Then again, it could be a valid stub; A3 does not demarcate the difference. Does one more sentence make this article a proper stub? I am not sure. The main reason I was for deletion is because it is not an article that has received any attention, the subject isn't really one that necessitates an encyclopaedic entry (perhaps a sentence in a dictionary), and it dilutes the usefulness of the various Wikipedia articles on Internet anonymity, which I am attempting to clean up, starting, mainly, with Anonymous blog. If deletion is ruled out, perhaps I can work on this article, but I really don't think there are any sources that can be used for it... anonymity applications are important, but the Anonymity on the Internet section of Anonymity covers everything needed, in my opinion. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. Morrowfolk (talk) 12:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:A3, like all speedy deletion criterion, has a very narrow range where it can be used to delete an article. It is only applicable for articles that consist of only external links, category tags and "See also" sections, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images. This article does have a huge see also section, but that is not the whole content of the article. The article discusses what an anonymity application is. If another article covers this material, this can be redirected to that article. Also, I am the third admin that has declined the speedy deletion of this article under WP:A3. You have three options, redirect this to another article that covers this material, nominate it for deletion using the WP:PROD process or nominate it for deletion using the WP:AFD process. Speedy deletion is not an option for this article. GB fan 14:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I was not meaning to butt heads; I wasn't aware of the entire due process. If I were to do a redirect, would I need to go through any procedure or just delete/redirect the page, and if that is a problem, it can be reverted? Morrowfolk (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no process for redirecting an article, someone can be bold and redirect one article to another on their own. If someone objects to the redirection the article should be restored and a discussion should take place to determine the article's fate. GB fan 19:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)