Talk:Honeydew honey
Appearance
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Notability
[edit]I believe the present concept passes WP:N, hence the fork from Honey. In other Wikipedia languages, the concept might appear as a section of Honeydew instead. Also notice there's already a separate article about Pine honey, which is a subtype of honeydew honey. fgnievinski (talk) 05:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- Generally the title here would just be a redirect to the main honey article, but what you mention would mostly fall under WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The different types of honey aren't inherently notable, but are mostly a case of WP:INHERIT from the notability of honey overall. A lot improvements, removal of unverified content, etc. were already recently done at the honey article that aren't reflected here. If there's content to expand that really demonstrates notability, that can be done at the honey article and then split out, but that should be very clear over at the parent article before that happens. KoA (talk) 14:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @KoA If you challenge this topic's notability, you should nominate this article for deletion. fgnievinski (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- If someone wants to outright delete the redirect they can propose that, but I was not suggesting the deletion route. WP:PROSPLIT would have been a better way to go with this one, so to roughly get it back to a status quo after the bold split I'll set up the redirect now (and as an WP:ATD). Feel free to propose the split at the honey page if you would like though, but it's probably best to get consensus for such a split first at this point since it's clear the split was disputed. KoA (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @KoA the blank-and-redirect is disputed, too; WP:ATD-R instructs AfD is the way to go. fgnievinski (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Fgnievinski, you were already aware the content was disputed and required consensus to restore it, so that shouldn't have happened regardless of the redirect. The burden is on you to get consensus for this split. The redirect was taking this article back as close to a status quo as it could without deleting it and normally you don't revert disputed content back in after that. You should either get consensus for the split or leave the redirect. I gave guidance above on discussing this at the honey page if you wish to get consensus for this, which would have been the first step before even getting to the point of needing AfD. KoA (talk) 04:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- @KoA the blank-and-redirect is disputed, too; WP:ATD-R instructs AfD is the way to go. fgnievinski (talk) 02:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
- If someone wants to outright delete the redirect they can propose that, but I was not suggesting the deletion route. WP:PROSPLIT would have been a better way to go with this one, so to roughly get it back to a status quo after the bold split I'll set up the redirect now (and as an WP:ATD). Feel free to propose the split at the honey page if you would like though, but it's probably best to get consensus for such a split first at this point since it's clear the split was disputed. KoA (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
- @KoA If you challenge this topic's notability, you should nominate this article for deletion. fgnievinski (talk) 22:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)