Wikipedia:JDELANOY – The discussions around the original speedy deletion reached no clear consensus as to its appropriateness or otherwise. However, there is general agreement that the right end outcome was reached. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was speedily deleted out of process under criterion G7, during an ongoing RfD that had multiple !votes to keep and had no obvious consensus at the time of deletion. On their talk page the deleting admin stated they "don't share the interpretation" that this was not speedy deletable, despite WP:CSD saying [if] the deletion is controversial [then] another deletion process should be used. and Administrators should take care not to speedily delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. Deletions during ongoing deletion discussions where there are good-faith recommendations for actions other than deletion are, by definition, not uncontroversial. It's true that this is not the most important redirect on the project, but it is very important that blatantly out of process speedy deletions are not allowed to stand, as these are one of the most harmful things an admin can do. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel this strongly about it, you can just recreate it. (And then restore the history behind it, or ask someone else to on WP:REFUND if doing it yourself makes you uncomfortable.) Then we can have a new rfd and delete it again there. —Cryptic19:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that once the Keep !votes were entered at the RfD, the G7 speedy was out of process. I also agree with the appellant's assertion that this type of CNR is harmless, and with the only other Keep !voter that the redirect is cheap. But what are we to gain from overturning this? The only user who likely made any use of this CNR was its creator, and he no longer has any use for it. So yes, if we're going by the book, we should:
overturn the speedy deletion;
delete the redirect again per clear consensus at the RfD; and
allow recreation, if someone has a use for such a CNR, which is highly doubtful.
Or, y'know, just leave it deleted, and issue a half-hearted finger-wag to the deleting admin while tacitly thanking him for trying to save us from some pointless bureaucracy, and move on to more substantive issues. Owen×☎19:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G7 and keep listed or relist at RFD. This was never a valid G7, which is a request for deletion by the originator. If Delanoy had returned from eight years absence to tag it with G7, it would still have been a valid G7. Maybe Jake Wartenberg meant to be deleting it as a G6, any of various sorts of non-controversial technical deletions, and that would have been reasonable until the Keep votes were entered, because they made it controversial. This is essentially a useless DRV, because the RFD will delete the redirect, but it was also a useless speedy deletion, since there was no need for an admin to intervene, except to make a point, and we assume that they knew better than to make a point. If the G7 is overturned and the RFD is resumed, I will vote to Delete, but this was definitely not a G7 or a G6. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/reopen Once there's an XFD going on, and it's gotten some reasonable "keep" votes, I don't think we ought to accept a G7. In my opinion, G7 during an XFD is appropriate only if all the voters have supported deletion, or if all the keep votes are worth ignoring: socks, nonsensical, obviously confused, etc. Nyttend (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. With the creator having removed any basis for keeping, the keep !votes were merely supporting his right to have the shortcut, the RfD should now be closed, by an uninvolved experienced closer, with prejudice against re-creation, and a possible finding of consensus to SLAP the creator. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Cryptic. It was deleted solely because of who created it. If you want the redirect to exist, just recreate it and the RfD will take care of it. --Tavix(talk)01:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the other !keep voter over on RfD, I'd like to point out that I actually don't feel very strongly about this redirect; its history page noted that it was created "for the lulz" by Jake Wartenburg and not Delanoy; usage was practically nil. My !keep vote was mostly due to A: it going from Wikipedia namespace to User namespace, which meant that the impact of the XNR on reader confusion would be minimal to nonexistent, and B: WP:CHEAP. It basically amounted to "We don't NEED to take any action here." That said, now that action's been taken... I similarly don't feel the need to restore it only to get it immediately re-deleted by RfD. I think WP:SNOW applies here? 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G7. Once there is genuine support to keep in a deletion discussion by any number of users, the deletion is clearly not uncontroversial, a requirement for speedy deletion. The in-progress RFD should be reopened, as that is the proper venue to delete this page. FrankAnchor10:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The keep arguments are the following (paraphrasing): "not intrinsically harmful", "no reason to delete", "redirects are cheap". These are not substantive arguments that the G7 should not be acted on. The reason to delete is G7, so there is a reason to delete. The stated arguments do not in any way contradict the basis of G7. The idea that something is not harmful and cheap always exists in the background. An unwanted draft tagged by creator and deleted is presumed "not harmful" and "cheap", so nothing new has been said by making these points. Arguably, G7 exists to handle non-harmful pages so saying that is actually consistent with the envisioned general scenario of G7 application. The G7 itself has not been made controversial. To do so, one would need to say: "I do not want this deleted because it's useful to me/someone" or "G7 was not requested in good faith". And no one has said that.—Alalch E.12:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether reasons stated for keeping are or are not "substantive" is something that is completely irrelevant to whether speedy deletion applies (they are something that can only be judged in the context of a deletion discussion). All that matters is that good-faith objections to deletion exist and have been expressed - anything else would require a change to speedy deletion policy. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There need to be objections that specifically target the criterion under which speedy deletion was requested. For example, in an AfD, there is a "keep, notable actor" !vote, and the page is tagged for G11 and deleted. That keep recommendation is not an objection to speedy deletion. —Alalch E.14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you cite any policy that backs up that argument? It certainly is not present in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, which simply says (in multiple ways) that deletion must be uncontroversial. If there are objections to deletion it is not uncontroversial, regardless of why there are objections. Thryduulf (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
endorse. i'll actively disagree with the keep votes, as "not intrinsically harmful" and "no reason to delete" are not necessarily equal to "not harmful" and "there is a reason to keep", or correct here. this is the one context i've seen in a while where wp:pandora is correct, as this type of redirect isn't mentioned in any policy or essay page (that i could find, at least), has no other examples (that i could find, at least, redirects to subpages related to generally useful stuff like wp:lupin notwithstanding), and could reasonably convince others to create similar redirects (where's wp:ferret?). i was going to argue that the one case where i thought a projectspace > userspace redirect would have been plausible would be wp:jimmy/wp:jimbo, but those already go somewhere elsecogsan(nag me)(stalk me)16:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There needs to be a reason to delete to delete, not a reason to keep to keep. Here, there was a reason to delete under policy---G7---and so, to not delete, we would need a reason that the provided otherwise valid reason to delete should not be a reason to delete in this concrete case (that's a contested speedy deletion situation), and we don't have that here. "Harmless page" is not it because the page being harmless is already the default supposition. —Alalch E.16:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 67 redirects from the Wikipedia namespace to User base pages; about 2/3 are in the all-uppercase no-spaces shortcut format. I'm not sure whether I expected more or less of them. —Cryptic21:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those CNRs are to bot accounts, which are technically "users" but for all practical purposes they are a wiki public tool or resource, making it sensible to park a redirect in project space. Joke redirects like WP:BASTARD to real users should probably be cleaned up, but I don't feel strongly about it either way. Owen×☎22:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseIf an author requests deletion of a page currently undergoing a deletion discussion, the closing admin may interpret that request as agreement with the deletion rationale. Perhaps this was slightly out of process, but the discussion was clearly going to be closed as delete anyways, and this is a giant waste of volunteer time. SportingFlyerT·C04:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I don't feel comfortable endorsing a G7 in this context where an ongoing discussion with good faith keep "votes" was short-circuited. But restoring the redirect is somewhere between pointless and a bad idea so I don't favor any action except a minnow to the deleting admin. In general, early closing of a "pointless" discussion is just as likely to generate a new round of drama and debate as it is to get people refocused on building the encyclopedia. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get over it and a WP:TROUT for the appellant. No, it shouldn't have been G7ed while the discussion was going on. But also, the keep votes were of piss-poor quality from users that have a track record of overzealous keep votes. This one was egregiously asinine. The consensus was clear; what is even the point of this review? WP:NOTBURO. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[T]he keep votes were of piss-poor quality from users that have a track record of overzealous keep votes is not something that is decided by a speedy delete admin. The fact is that there were keep votes, therefore making the deletion not uncontroversial and G7 should not have applied. WP:NOTBURO emphasizes following the principles, not the letter of the policy/guideline. A core principle of WP:SPEEDY is that the deletion is not controversial; this article is not a good candidate for G7 even though the author does request deletion. FrankAnchor13:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant NOTBURO for here, because even if this is overturned, it's only going to be to list the discussion for another 3 days before the clear consensus to delete is enacted, further wasting everyone's time, far too much of which has already been done. "A core principle of WP:SPEEDY is that the deletion is not controversial; ..." But it wasn't controversial, because as others have already pointed out, no one was advocating for the existence of the redirect, only objecting with generic "it's harmless; stop listing these" hand-waves. And as also already pointed out, either keep voter would have perfectly clean hands in recreating a G7ed redirect, at which point it will go back to RFD and be deleted again. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody recommending "keep" in the discussion is advocating for the existence of the redirect. That you disagree with their reasons for doing so does not change this. Thryduulf (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse I agree with the OP that this should not have been deleted under G7 but I don't think its likely that leaving it open for longer would have resulted in a consensus other than "delete". The "delete" side (which has a 8-2 majority) have explained why this redirect is likely to inconvenience people and not likely be helpful while the "keep" side have argued its harmless without going much into why. Maybe it could be reopened to allow counter arguments about it being harmful but otherwise especially given its been closed 3 times (once by me) I think we can just let this one be. So while I don't really see a problem with re opening it, it does seem a bit pointless. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty much a regular at the AFD daily log page and have seen G7 speedy deletions of articles being discussed at an AFD probably a dozen times over the past 4 years. It's not common but it happens. Often admins reviewing CSD-tagged articles don't even notice AFD tags as they frequently don't come to close AFD discussions after they have speedy deleted the article. Which is all to say, if we want policy to disallow G7 deletions of articles being discussed at AFDs, we should change CSD policy to state this. LizRead!Talk!01:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G7 deletions of redirects at RfD is not uncommon, and when there are are no objections to the deletion it's uncontroversial and both good and useful. The only issue is what happens when there are objections to deletion - policy is unambiguous that speedy deletion is only to be used in uncontroversial cases. In pretty much every situation this is interpreted as meaning that good-faith objections to deletion make deletion controversial so it needs to go to XfD if someone still wants it deleted, except for some reason here when "I don't like it so we can ignore those who disagree with me" is being endorsed. Policy doesn't need to change, it just needs to be applied even when some people don't like it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse simply because it looked as though consensus was swaying towards deletion. I do agree with the Thryduulf that the redirect was CSD'ed out of procedure/policy due to there being at least one "keep" vote in the discussion, but since it looks like consensus would have resulted in "delete" anyways, it's a big "meh" from me at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Shuying Li – Per Cryptic, blocked and/or banned users don't have standing at DRV. Secondly, the R2 deletion was clearly correct; the content was draftified to Draft:Shuying Li. If the editor is unblocked, they can then file a DRV relating to 'Draft:Shuying Li' should they wish to. Daniel (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The main page for Shuying Li, a notable Chinese-American composer, was deleted under the R2 criterion for a cross-namespace redirect. However, the article was intended to be a mainspace entry. Shuying Li's notability is supported by reliable sources from major publications, academic references, and performance history. I request that the main page be restored for further improvement and submission. 2600:1010:A13E:2DE2:D41D:BDA8:D765:C404 (talk) 17:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
