Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 May 12: Difference between revisions
→'phone: Reply |
→'phone: seems obvious what they meant |
||
Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*<s>Overturn</s> ['''Send to RfD''' after Stifle's comment]. The participants made the wrong arguments based on a wrong understanding of the facts and the outcome is wrong. The RfD should be voided leading to undeletion. It doesn't matter how old it is.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
*<s>Overturn</s> ['''Send to RfD''' after Stifle's comment]. The participants made the wrong arguments based on a wrong understanding of the facts and the outcome is wrong. The RfD should be voided leading to undeletion. It doesn't matter how old it is.—[[User talk:Alalch E.|Alalch E.]] 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
*:Sending a redlink to RfD is silly. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
*:Sending a redlink to RfD is silly. [[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 01:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
*::They (obviously) mean to restore the redirect and procedurally nominate it at RFD. Like, y'know, it used to be standard practice for anything restored by DRV and VFU before it. —[[User:Cryptic|Cryptic]] 01:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Allow recreation''' as a plausible redirect. The closer correctly interpreted consensus, but the nomination was flawed. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''[[User:Frank Anchor|<span style="color: #FF8200;">Frank</span>]] [[User talk:Frank Anchor|<span style="color: #58595B;">Anchor</span>]]'''</span> 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
*'''Allow recreation''' as a plausible redirect. The closer correctly interpreted consensus, but the nomination was flawed. <span style="font-family: Trebuchet MS;">'''[[User:Frank Anchor|<span style="color: #FF8200;">Frank</span>]] [[User talk:Frank Anchor|<span style="color: #58595B;">Anchor</span>]]'''</span> 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
*'''Question''' - Are we being asked to overturn a 17-year-old close, or to allow recreation? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
*'''Question''' - Are we being asked to overturn a 17-year-old close, or to allow recreation? [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 18:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:13, 18 May 2024
Seems like a flawed nomination. See wikt:'phone. 1234qwer1234qwer4 17:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Endorse regretfullyAllow recreation. We need a good reason to delete a redirect, especially for a word that appears in the dictionary, and no such reason was provided by the Delete !voters on that RfD. But the closing admin correctly read the consensus. In a WP search for 'phone, the "Telephone" result doesn't even appear in the top 200 results. This was a correct, but unfortunate closure that should now be amended. Owen× ☎ 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)- Allow recreation for how long its been since the RfD Mach61 18:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is no need to formally review a 17 year old XFD. Just recreate it and if someone has an issue, a new discussion can happen. Star Mississippi 00:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding of this nomination is that it's per WP:DRVPURPOSE #3, as otherwise a recreation of this redirect would potentially be liable to be G4ed. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- You may very well be correct, but I've seen that applied to maybe 17 month old discussions. Nothing of this vintage. No sane patroller is going to scream G4 at a 2007-era discussion. Oh wait, don't we have a 20 year old one here now? Oops Star Mississippi 02:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding of this nomination is that it's per WP:DRVPURPOSE #3, as otherwise a recreation of this redirect would potentially be liable to be G4ed. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 00:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Overturn[Send to RfD after Stifle's comment]. The participants made the wrong arguments based on a wrong understanding of the facts and the outcome is wrong. The RfD should be voided leading to undeletion. It doesn't matter how old it is.—Alalch E. 12:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)- Sending a redlink to RfD is silly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- They (obviously) mean to restore the redirect and procedurally nominate it at RFD. Like, y'know, it used to be standard practice for anything restored by DRV and VFU before it. —Cryptic 01:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sending a redlink to RfD is silly. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- Allow recreation as a plausible redirect. The closer correctly interpreted consensus, but the nomination was flawed. Frank Anchor 13:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Question - Are we being asked to overturn a 17-year-old close, or to allow recreation? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Allow Recreation subject to a new RFD. There has to be a time limit on deletions of redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
- Keep deleted. It would be an unlikely/implausible redirect; nobody types that into search. Stifle (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Allow recreation. In my opinion, the existence of wikt:'phone demonstrates the plausibility of this as a redirect. No need to send directly to RfD from deletion review, as any editor who wishes to start an RfD may do so. All the best, —a smart kitten[meow] 10:52, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
- Waste of time nomination. Do not bring old things to DRV without a reason, such as an active disagreement, a warning, SALT, etc. Boldly create if you’re sure, anyone can RfD it, or if you’re not sure, find something else to do. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- This recreated redirect would be liable to G4, and, for example, Stifle (who does not support its retention) could simply G4 it, uncontestably. —Alalch E. 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- And that would be the proper time to bring this to DRV. —Cryptic 11:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. This preemptive DRV serves to waste volunteer time now because someone might hypothetically waste volunteer time.
- Things should not be brought to DRV just because something was done wrong, there should be an actual problem to fix. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree with that. —Alalch E. 15:21, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- And that would be the proper time to bring this to DRV. —Cryptic 11:02, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
- This recreated redirect would be liable to G4, and, for example, Stifle (who does not support its retention) could simply G4 it, uncontestably. —Alalch E. 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Ami Dror (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
This is a extremely contentious Afd that was closed by the admin with a simple keep as though they were closing an Afd opened by mistake. None of the problem inherent in the Afd discussion were addresed. From the canvassing at the beginning, to the the whole course of the keep !votes being based on false premises, hand-waving and wilful (supposed) ignorance of policy, particularly ignorance of the WP:O Note d, i.e. the idea that interviews can prove a person notable. These arguments have been given false creedence that has lead to a false keep !vote. It should have been delete, or at the worst no consensus. Now we have been left with a group that thinks its ok to use interviews to prove notability. I think the whole thing feels staged. scope_creepTalk 13:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |