Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 April 1

Wikipedia logo – keep deleted, but welcome a userspace draft – Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Recently on Jimbo's talk page, a user expressed that they would like to create Wikipedia logo, but they couldn't, as it has been protected from editing from non-admins. I then directed them to Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos, saying that a page already existed on the topic. I'm now requesting that the deleted article be made into a redirect to Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. According to WP:CNR, consensus seems to be that newly created cross-namespace redirects should be deleted. However, I believe that this should be an exception, which is why I brought it here to get a consensus. If someone entered Wikipedia logo in the search box, as the aforementioned user did, the content they would be looking for would be at Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos. However, the user is taken to the search results, where the WP page cannot be readily found because it is in the Wikipedia namespace; thus, it would never be found. One reasoning that CNRs are bad, as quoted from WP:CNR, is that "CNRs are bad because they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around." However, this project page is not just useful to the editors, as most other Wikipedia namespace pages are; it is also what the reader would be looking for, which is an informative article in an encyclopedic sense as compared to other pages that aren't, such as WP:N and WP:Afd (just to throw out a few). ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 16:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted - The Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos page is sourced almost entirely to various internal pages and AFAICT, has only one reliable secondary source. Its mostly original research. Linking to this like an article would be inappropriate. Mr.Z-man 23:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the page were to be fixed up to have reliable and secondary sources, would you consider creating the redirect to be appropriate? (I may do it in the future, if it is even possible to find reliable sources covering the information in the article - but don't quote me on that). I just want to get an idea if it is even worth it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a short article in the mainspace containing only sourced content with images of the logo during its evolution, with a "See also", or "Main article" to the "Wikipedia:Wikipedia logos" article? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. :) ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 13:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need for a self-referential mainspace article which effectively duplicates something already in project space. Guy (Help!) 07:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted for now per Mr.Z-man. This can be brought back to DRV after a userspace draft is created. A userspace draft along the lines of that suggested by Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs) seems the most appropriate. Cunard (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 April 2010[edit]