Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 25

Saints Row: Undercover – Procedural closure. Redirecting a page is not a deletion, but an editorial action than can be reverted and should be discussed on the article talk page. It is therefore not subject to review in this forum. Sandstein 07:28, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article about this specific game was deleted and turned into a redirect to the main series article without any discussion. Several references to articles specifically about this game at sources listed as reliable sources at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(video_games) were given (IGN, Eurogamer, Kotaku, The Verge, and Polygon), which, I believe, established independent notability for this specific game, which is a game in a popular series that has been officially released by its developer, and had received significant coverage beyond mere mentions in these reliable sources. 2019UKUser (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted, it was just redirected, so this is the wrong venue. Any user can undo that redirect. Given the sources in the article, it probably meets the GNG. Hobit (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Because a redirect is a quasi-deletion, coming here was a reasonable error by the appellant. Because redirecting is considered a normal editing action, it can, but should not, lead to edit-warring, which should be avoided by dispute resolution. Is there any special process for resolving a redirect conflict, or should that be resolved by RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has only been blanked & redirected once, so per WP:BRD and WP:ATD-R, revert the redirect, and then anyone can take it to AfD if they feel strongly about it. Jumpytoo Talk 07:28, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with the above advice and clarification that a redirect created by a regular editor is not an action that needs to be reviewed here. Jclemens (talk) 06:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)‎ – Non-admin closure vacated (by me) and AFD reopened. Stifle (talk) 14:27, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

There were significant procedural errors: the discussion was closed early and also by an editor who was clearly involved in the discussion. It was also closed as merge instead of redirect, thus forcing a merge when the article had existed as a redirect for 10 years. Rs chen 7754 05:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about an article which was put to AFD in 2009, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York), which closed "no consensus". Then later Rschen7754 and everyone else in 2012 Talk:County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York)/GA2 discussion decided it should be merged to List of county routes in Onondaga County, New York. That was the obvious consensus, by five !votes to no other votes, by my quick reading of the discussion. The merge was not implmented, as I happened to notice recently when the 2009 AFD discussion was edited (by Malnadachbot; aside: why is a bot being allowed to alter such old AFDs?). I was at the moment without energy to do the proper merger and also was not up to speed in how to put on "merger required" tags myself, and I restored the article with an edit summary calling for merger to be implemented. I suppose that was technically incorrect to do that, I am sorry if that bothers people. I guess I had hoped someone would help take care of the problem. Then, instead, Rschen7754 opened a new AFD, to which I objected. I sorry if I have offended Rschen somehow, if that is what has happened, by my objecting to their opening a new AFD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 236 (Onondaga County, New York) (2nd nomination). Indeed I think their action was unnecessary and unhelpful and was just causing drama. I asked Rschen to please just drop it, and then they open this deletion review.

I am not sure what Rschen wants from this, besides to chastise me for not following some rules perfectly. Suppose that is done. Then what else does Rschen want? Does Rschen want to insist that nothing can be merged from the old article? Would they edit war against stuff being merged? I don't see point to having a big deletion review being done, unless others feel it is actually productive to attach blame to me or to Rschen for no purpose affecting actual content of mainspace Wikipedia. Sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 05:53, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - this closure is a complete abuse of the AfD process. This dispute started when Doncram restored an article which was previously redirected, arguing that a previous discussion supported merging it, that no merge was done, and that the article should remain until that happened. (This doesn't make a lot of sense to me - if you think something should be merged, just merge it. There's no need to restore an article nobody thinks should exist.) Doncram then participated in the AfD [1][2] and then closed it as Merge after it had been open for two days [3]. Doncram is now saying that the page should be merged because that's what the AfD decided [4]. Non-procedural AfD closures should be done by uninvolved editors, which is essentially the opposite of what happened here, and there wasn't any particular reason to close the debate five days early. Probably the best outcome here would be to redirect the thing and let anybody who is interested (including Doncram) merge any content they think is appropriate. Hut 8.5 08:42, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (speedy close SK#1). Should never have been at AfD. Revert the bold recreation, back to the long standing redirect, simple WP:BRD. Discuss at the talk page of the redirect target, Talk:List_of_county_routes_in_Onondaga_County,_New_York. Keep as a redirect subject to consensus on that talk page to recreate the page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SLAP the AfD closer, User:Doncram for the blatant WP:INVOLVED close. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn, closed by someone who was not independent. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
overturn - You can't be a partipant, and then (badly) close the AfD. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn obviously. For one thing, when most people say redirect and there is no uncontested & overwhelming argument for merge, I'd expect a redirect. Secondly, you don't close a discussion in which you participated in - WP:INVOLVED usually applies to nonadmin closes as well. Three, I don't see a reason for a speedy close. Also, not so much about the merits of the close itself but I expect that closers refrain from making comments like Gee, I am sorry to have given Rschen an excuse to cause drama, by their creating this unnecessary AFD. in a discussion they closed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it was a non-admin closure. I'm vacating it per WP:DPR#NAC. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kuraudo – "Delete" closure endorsed, desu. Sandstein 09:51, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kuraudo is the Hepburn romanisation of the Japanese name of Cloud Strife, a character in a game that was developed and published by Japanese companies. The first line of Cloud Strife contains both the katakana クラウド・ストライフ and the Hepburn romanisation Kuraudo Sutoraifu in a parenthetical, indicating that the Japanese version of the name is "orignal or official". According to Wikipedia:Redirects in languages other than English, this would fall under Original or official names of people, places, institutions, publications or products, and is not, as described by Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for deleting§8, a page whose subject is unrelated to that language.

Additionally, the argument that a first name cannot be an official name is not correct, as the character is often referred to in official, original sources, not to mention the Cloud Strife article, as simply "Cloud" or クラウド/Kuraudo. "Official" also does not mean "not colloquial", as Lightning (Final Fantasy)'s "official" in-universe name may be Claire Farron, but the redirect policy cannot reasonably be assumed to refer to a fictional character's birth certificate rather than any name officially used by the creators of the fictional work. 9³ (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is a venue to address issues where the deletion process has not been followed. It is not a location to get a "second bite at the cherry" by re-arguing points that were (or could have been) made at the original deletion discussion.
Keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was closed as delete contrary to existing policy at WP:REDIRECT quoted above. My interpretation is that since no reference to the policy was made, significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. 9³ (talk) 01:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDIRECT is a guideline, not a policy, and is subject to interpretation and application by consensus. The consensus at the discussion was clear, and you don't get to come to DRV to try and get a more favourable answer (see WP:OTHERPARENT). Stifle (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERPARENT is irrelevant as I never participated in the original deletion discussion back in 2019 and this is the first time I am raising this issue and the first time anyone is referencing the WP:REDIRECT guideline on foreign language redirects. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy, If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion was improperly closed...you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review. The closing admin properly determined consensus, but I do get to come to DRV as per WP:DRVPURPOSE 3 and because the closer applied improper judgment as there was, as per the deletion process guideline, Conflict between the views expressed and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and he should not have closed. 9³ (talk) 00:33, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The right close, and a correct application of the guideline on foreign redirects. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: can you explain how the redirect fails WP:FORRED? 9³ (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse consensus was clear and within policy grounds. SportingFlyer T·C 20:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The clear consensus of the discussion was that (a) "Kuraudo" is the romanisation of "Cloud" not "Cloud Strife" (c.f. Kuraudo Sutoraifu), so the target was wrong, and (b) clouds have no particular affinity to Japanese so fails WP:FORRED. Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 February 2022[edit]