- Human Instrumentality Project (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Cirt (talk · contribs) closed the AfD as a "redirect", but chose to delete it entirely and then redirect it. This was unnecessary because the content was not libelous or harmful in any way. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Redirection says nothing about deleting; Wikipedia:Deletion process#Process specifically says what to do when closing a "redirect" and that does not include any deletion. Deletion & redirection are mutually exclusive closes. Policy aside, when I was an admin, it never occurred to me that a 'redirect' might involve a 'delete', nor have I been involved with very many articles whose AfD closed as 'redirect' but got implemented as 'delete & redirect'.
I am requesting that the article history be undeleted. (Note: I am not asking for the article to be restored; let the redirect remain at Human Instrumentality Project, but restore the history.)
I did attempt to work with Cirt but he brushed me off, told me to take it to DRV, and stop talking to him.
DRV is supposed to be about procedural issues - like I believe the above is - but I know content matters to some editors, so I will quickly address it. The charges of being unsourced are clearly false: a work of fiction is its own source, and the article had a third-party reference as well. The accusations of being unnotability I also believe to be false; Neon Genesis Evangelion is, besides being a multi-decade multi-billion-dollar franchise, the subject of endless discussion - academic & otherwise - and I provided Cirt with several possible sources on just HIP alone (I know my own personal collection of papers & books contains many more). --Gwern (contribs) 22:31 28 January 2010 (GMT)
- Endorse. The consensus here was to redirect. But the consensus was based only on the view that the article's title was a viable search term. There was a clear consensus that the content of the page itself was not appropriate for encyclopedic material. No-one voted for a keep or merge (two outcomes that reflect a consensus to retain the content); only one person suggested a merge. Accordingly, the consensus to redirect was also, at the same time, a consensus to delete the content of the page. The action of deleting then redirecting was entirely appropriate. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Mkativerata (talk · contribs), very well-said and I agree with this analysis. Cirt (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mkativerata, Cirt adjudged the consensus was 'redirect'. I assume that he stands by that choice. He did not choose 'delete and if anyone - like me - feels like it, they can make a redirect because it's a good search term'; this judgement is no part of AfD's purpose nor does it appear anywhere in the deletion guidelines I cited. The actual pages say nothing about mix-and-match, consensuses are not like Communion wafers, mystically 2 things at once: if you close as 'redirect', you redirect; if you close as 'delete', you delete. There are only 2 things that make up a 'redirect' close: the page history remains, and the article text is replaced by a #REDIRECT; get rid of either one, and it's not a 'redirect' close! It makes as much sense as an admin turning in a 'delete' consensus but deciding to merge the content somewhere else.
- The forms have not been followed. I ask that they be followed. --Gwern (contribs) 02:20 29 January 2010 (GMT)
- Delete and redirect is an occasional AfD result, often used to prevent easy reverting to the full article. It has fewer considerations than merge and delete (see WP:Merge and delete). Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- And do you know that nothing was merged into the glossary, making the delete illegal? As well, I fail to see what is so pernicious about the article history that it must be destroyed. (I hoped I addressed the issue of its notability in my statement. That I was burnt-out and not up to defending it during its AfD does not prove that it is unnotable. AfDs for specialist areas tend to be a crapshoot based on whether any quasi-experts are around and willing to put in effort. I have more than once swung AfDs from delete to keep after research.) --Gwern (contribs) 14:50 30 January 2010 (GMT)
- I hadn't checked, but looking at the last 500 edits now, there are no edits labeled "merged", and none of the edits to the Human Instrumentality Project section are accompanied by a significant size increase. Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst I see no compelling reason to delete the page history, I think the decision in this respect should be left to the sound discretion of the closing admin, and I'm not convinced that the discretion has been abused here. However, it may be appropriate to provide a copy of the original content upon request, and, if some portion of the content is deemed suitable for merging after sourcing, to undelete the history for attribution purposes. At this posture, though, I think the question is quite academic. Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore history but keep Human Instrumentality Project as a redirect - there were small bits on the page that could have been merged into the relevant section on the Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary, it just isn't worth its own page. I would have suggested to very selectively merge the article rather than redirect if I had known that the history of the article was going to be deleted. --Malkinann (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Question by the end of the AfD was the material in the article largely sourced, either to the primary sources or third party sources? I'd agree with this deletion if there was nothing even vaguely recoverable (as many of the early deletion !votes stated) but disagree if it had improved by the time it got deleted (even if still not meeting our notability guidelines). I know Gwern's thoughts, but I'd like to hear the thoughts of others who have access to the material as it was at the time of deletion. Hobit (talk) 18:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- looking at it, most of it is appropriately sourced to the primary work itself. There are a few statements of opinion that were not sourced, e.g. "This could be another reason the term "instrumentality" is used". A number of "cite" tags were added, but they were added unnecessarily, to purely descriptive material. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore history but keep as a redirect As the article is removed either way, I see no need to delete the material. If there was nothing of potential value (or BLP related things) sure, but here I don't see any reason for a "delete and redirect" and doing so is against the notion of WP:PRESERVE. As Tim says, I don't think admin discretion was abused at all. I just think there was no policy-based need or reason for the action, and decent reason not to delete first. Hobit (talk) 22:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – only InsaneZeroG, DGG, and Doc Quintana mentioned the possibility of merging, and no one specified what content might be appropriate to merge. Considerations before restoring article history —clarified Flatscan (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC): whether reversion to the full article is likely (page protection may address this) and if the deleted content is actually useful to Gwern or other editors. Flatscan (talk) 05:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't intend to restore anytime soon without a great deal of work on the article, and as HIP is one of the most important single events in the NGE storyline and likely to constitute the major difference in the new Rebuild movies, HIP's deleted content is useful to not just me, but every future NGE editor or reader. --Gwern (contribs) 14:50 30 January 2010 (GMT)
|
