- List of wrestlers in WWE video games (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The discussion was closed as "redirect", but I do not believe that was representative of the discussion - there was a clear consensus in favor of "deletion". The discussion had 7 !votes in favor of deletion, all based off of relevant policy/guidelines/essays regarding lists. Its an unsourced list, not likely to be documented as a primary topic of discussion by third party sources, and not especially a likely search term. There were only 2 !votes for redirect, and neither gave any rationale for their stance. (One just said it should happen, and one was the article creator, merely saying he'd rather not have his work deleted.) The closer, MelanieN proceeded to close it as a redirect anyways, and when I asked her about it, she stated that she personally "always leans toward redirect if there is a plausible target". While that is a fine stance for a participant in a discussion, it is not an appropriate action as a close for a discussion that did not contain a consensus for such an action. Sergecross73 msg me 00:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment After Serge objected to this close at my userpage, I encouraged him to bring it here, since I would value the community's input. It should be added that in addition to seven "deletes" and two "redirects", there was also a !vote to "userfy". Since there was some sentiment to redirect and an obvious target, I opted to redirect. (I am a fairly new admin but a longtime AfD commenter - and I have seen discussions closed as "redirect" when only one person suggested that option.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed, it is acceptable as an action sometimes, but only when there is a consensus to do so. No such consensus was present in this discussion. A closer's job is to make a call based on what is already present in the discussion. I don't see any reason for those 2 !votes to outweigh those 7 other !votes present, when those 2 !votes didn't even contain a rationale, (
or an actual redirect target if you read what they said only one person even suggested a target.) I don't mean to sound like I'm assuming bad faith, but I don't know how to see this as anything other than someone taking their personal stance and making it be the final conclusion of a discussion, disregarding the actual discussion that happened. Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Serge, you seem totally focused on the 7-2-1 count. (I don't know why you always omit the "userfy" !vote.) So let me expand a little on why I didn't just follow the count. Before I became an admin I had participated in (looking it up) 3,500 AfDs. During that time I had seen multiple occasions where the majority favored "delete" but somebody suggested a plausible redirect - and the discussion was closed as "redirect", sometimes with the comment that "Redirects are cheap". I concluded, as an observer, that "redirect" is a possible or even preferred alternative to deletion, even when the majority of discussants said "delete". That was then; this is now. Now I am here as a newish admin, discussing the concept with other admins, and willing to listen and learn.
- I don't mention the Userfy because it was a non-factor -- only one person suggested it, without a rationale, and it was not the end close result. It was a distant third place option that didn't happen - there's nothing really to be said? That aside, I'd be fine with what you did had there been much closer of a split between stances, with both sides. I've seen that happen plenty of times in my 500+ AFDs I've been a part of, and I'm fine with that as a "tiebreaker" type call. There's been a bunch of times where I've gone "Delete", and the end result is "redirect", or vice versa, and I hadn't cared because it was a close call. I don't recall ever taking one of these scenarios to DRV ever before, so its not like I have a history of objecting to this type of scenario. My problem here is that it really wasn't split, it was 7 to 2 in raw votes, and should have been weighted something closer to 6-0 if you discount !votes given without a policy-based rationale. Which is why I keep on saying, what you did would have been a legitimate !vote, for sure, it just wasn't good as a close. You can't look at that discussion, and conclude "Yeah, this is policy-based decision the majority of participants requested." When you look at what was discussed, how you closed it, and how you defend it, to me, it feels too much like you played the dual role of both a participant and a closer. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a valid opinion on your part, and I respect it. As I said, I have seen this done often enough - cases where there were a bunch of delete !votes, and toward the end of the discussion somebody came up with a possible redirect, and the closer chose "redirect" - that I believed it was an acceptable approach. In other words that it doesn't necessarily have to be a clear consensus !vote or a close call, to redirect instead of deleting. I based that on what I have seen other admins do. We have both said what we have to say; let's see what others think. --MelanieN (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure as "redirect". I strongly endorse Mkativerata (talk · contribs)'s comment at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 25#Windows Police Pro:
Restore history. The closing admin's comment—"If someone wants to merge it somewhere, drop a note on my talk page, and I'll userfy it for him or her."—does not appear to be consistent with our attribution policies. The history can, and needs to be, kept underneath the redirect in case any of it is to be merged, so that the original contributors can be attributed. As a broader point, unless there is good reason to delete content from history (copyvio, BLP etc), deleting the history underneath a redirect is unnecessary. Recent DRVs confirm this to be the view of the community. Furthermore, when people !vote to "delete" an article at AfD, what they're usually arguing, in substance, is not for the technical act of deleting the article and its history, but for the substantive result of removing a stand-alone article. A consensus based on that substantive result does not preclude the creation of a redirect in place of the article. Nor does it ordinarily preclude the restoration of the article's history behind that redirect. Substance over form is the key.
See also the comments and links at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2015/January#History undeletion underneath redirect.The page history of List of wrestlers in WWE video games can be used as a reference for WWE 2K editors. Editors interested in the topic might be drawn towards working on articles about wrestlers affiliated with the video games. For example, see DrewieStewie (talk · contribs)'s comment in the AfD ("I use it for personal note, and even though it's mostly trivial, it still is valuable to me.") And if some of the content can be sourced (as DrewieStewie) has indicated ("It may be just a simple, unsourced list (I can add sources tomorrow)"), some of it can be merged to related articles. The only downside I see is if the redirect is reverted. But MelanieN has promised to watchlist the page, and redirect reverting is easily remedied by applying full protection. The potential benefits outweigh the negatives, and the "delete" editors did not provide a compelling reason to keep the history deleted (copyright violation or BLP violation). It is therefore within admin discretion to retain the page history under the redirect for editors to use for reference. Cunard (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Protection is an excellent idea. Because it turned out that someone (previously uninvolved in the discussion) did revert the redirect. It was restored within minutes, before I could even get to it. But since the AfD was clear that this should not be an article, I will apply full protection on the redirect. Thanks for the suggestion. --MelanieN (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse "delete" and "redirect" are basically the same in this situation, both constitute a decision that "we don't think we should have an article at this title". It's not an inappropriate search term, none of the delete commenters thought a redirect was a bad idea, and contrary to what was said above the target was mentioned in the discussion. Hut 8.5 06:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hut 8.5 - Apologies, you're right, one person did mention a redirect target. I've struck that comment. And yes, while no one outright said "I oppose a redirect", my hang-up is that no one provided a single rationale for a redirect in the discussion. There's literally no rationale present in the actual discussion (or if there is, please point it out to me.) Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As I've said above, deleting an article and redirecting it without merging are basically the same outcome, so the participants were all (except one) saying essentially the same thing and it doesn't really matter which one the discussion was closed as. Obviously this would not be the case if people offered rationales against one of these two possibilities, but that wasn't the case. Two people obviously thought that to leave a redirect would be better, and one of them give a rationale (that the editing history may be useful in the future), so I don't see any reason not to go ahead with that. Hut 8.5 17:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, 2 people obviously said that they preferred a redirect, but they didn't even give a reason why. They offered no rationale. Those types of arguments are supposed to be weighted far less. Not offering any sort of reason is a very strong and valid reason not to go ahead with it. Sergecross73 msg me 18:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill here. Your comment implicitly assumes that the people who left "delete" comments were opposed to a redirect closure, which isn't true. As those closures are basically the same support for deletion shouldn't be construed as opposition to redirection, unless there's some comment saying so. The rationale for a redirect closure is the same as the rationale for a delete closure because, again, those closures are basically the same. Hut 8.5 20:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- All I know is that no one provided a policy-based rationale for a redirect, and not a single "delete" person mentioned a redirect in any capacity. It's not that they're opposition, its that they didn't say anything on it. You've got 2 people who said "redirect" without a reason, and 7 people who didn't say anything about it at all. How is that a support for a redirect? That equals zero policy-based !votes for a redirect. Sergecross73 msg me 21:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If they're not opposed then this discussion is a waste of time because all participants are happy with the outcome (apart from the one person who wanted it userfied). If they are opposed then they should have said so. "Delete" is usually just the default label for "I don't think we should have an article on this, get rid of it". I myself have left plenty of Delete comments on AfDs I would have been happy to see redirected instead. Hut 8.5 21:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd tend to think of this close as a sequence of actions that can be separated from one another. There's an assessment of the community's consensus ("delete"), then an editorial decision (to create a redirect, which any editor could have done), and then an administrative decision (to restore the history beneath the redirect, which is required by Wikipedia's attribution policy). Those were all reasonable decisions in isolation from one another. Does Sergecross73 have a specific objection to the redirect or is this DRV purely about procedure?—S Marshall T/C 07:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- S Marshall - A large part of it is procedural, but Cryptic touches on my personal objection to this. According to WikiProject guidelines, large, exhaustive, bare list of aspects of video games are not allowed. If we're following guidelines, not only should the list article not exist, but the redirect target should not ever have have a list in it to redirect to. (Unless someone ends up writing some prose about the characters, but that's unlikely, as it would largely just boil down to: "Wrestler 1 is in the game. wrestler 2 is also in the game. Etc". Sergecross73 msg me 10:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I may be missing something. The concern about the redirect relates to the way the target article is written? Because I can't connect that with a need to delete the redirect. Surely the answer is to remove the list from the target article?—S Marshall T/C 19:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- S Marshall - My reason for coming to DRV was that I'm unhappy in the reading of the consensus in respect to the content present in the discussion. There were many policy-based reasons for delete, and absolutely zero rationale given in the 2 redirect !votes. Melanie's stance makes for a good !vote, but not a good close, because no one made a policy based argument to do so. Separate from that, my particular stance in the discussion was that the entire stand-alone list was a huge violation of WP:GAMECRUFT - an inappropriate list related to video games. Not only is it inappropriate as a stand-alone list, but its also inappropriate as a list within an article, and if such a list shouldn't ever exist in the article, it doesn't make sense to have a redirect for it, as the redirect target shouldn't contain the relevant information. Think of it this way: Lets say there was a stand-alone article called "Trivia Related to Basketball". That's not an appropriate article, and it should not exist as one. It also wouldn't be a good idea to redirect it to "Basketball" or "Basketball#Trivia", because, per WP:TRIVIA, the section shouldn't really exist. Sergecross73 msg me 20:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, I understand that. I must say that I wouldn't personally elect to spend any of my volunteering time creating or maintaining a list of characters in a wrestling video game. I think the correct assessment of the discussion would have been "delete". But if I distinguish MelanieN's actions from each other ---- an administrative close as "delete", then an editorial decision to redirect, then an administrative action to restore the history beneath the redirect ---- then it's hard to say that there's anything much wrong with her actions, particularly now that she's protected the redirect to stop anyone restoring the content that was removed. When I see it in that way I can't find grounds to recommend an "overturn" outcome to the closer.
You're saying something that I think is slightly different, which is that Wikipedia shouldn't contain this content, which I understand to mean it shouldn't exist on Wikipedia in any form. In other words, according to you the redirect should be deleted to purge the history, and any similar lists in other articles should also be excised. I'd suggest beginning a discussion on the talk page of WWE 2K about that as the AfD doesn't affect that page.—S Marshall T/C 21:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - delete and redirect are essentially the same position at AfD; none of the delete rationales suggest any reason not to have a redirect. Otherwise, as S Marhsall notes, you can look at it as delete + create redirect to end up in the state we're in now, which is perhaps not the most rigid application of policy without any thought as to what you're doing, except every policy begins by saying don't rigidly apply this without thinking about what you're doing. WilyD 08:02, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WilyD My hang up is that no one gave an actual redirect rationale at the AFD. There is literally no rationale for redirect given in the discussion. I'm getting a lot of the "Its a plausible search term" or "Eh, redirect and delete are pretty much the same thing", but no one actually said any of this in the actual discussion itself, and that's what the close is supposed to be based off of. If they're essentially the same thing, why chose against the one that had had an overwhelming policy/guideline based consensus? I don't see it as being especially rigid, just following "How to Determine a Consensus 101". Sergecross73 msg me 12:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Regardless, one could close as delete, then create the redirect without giving a rational, so it's still a needlessly long dance to arrive at the same place. WilyD 14:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. The closer's decision was irrational as it failed to take account of the consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unconvinced this would have survived rfd or even a simple db-r3 tag if it had been created as a redirect without an article beneath it or an afd discussing it, for the simple reason that there's no list of wrestlers at the target article. Even the #Roster section only names four. (I suppose I should point out this edit, though.) —Cryptic 09:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. See Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap. When I close an AfD as a deletion, if there's been any reasonable suggestion of a place to redirect to, and no cogent arguments specifically against a redirect, I pretty much consider it a gimme. In this case, I don't think the title is a particularly useful redirect because it's an unlikely search term, but when in doubt, see Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and move on to something more important. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I'm very happy that we should redirect, if possible, rather than delete, unless the content is abusive. And personally I'd welcome this even if no one mentioned "redirect". By all means protect the redirect proactively if it helps. Thank you to S Marshall for the approach he suggests and to several others for encapsulating. If there isn't a written policy or guideline covering this I think there should be. There is no benefit in hiding history unless the content was abusive. Thincat (talk) 07:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, I rescind the nomination. There's a clear consensus here, and I don't want to waste anyone else's time. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
|
