This raises the question of what "no consensus" means here: per WP:DRV#Closing reviews, no consensus for contested XfD closures means endorse by default or relist, but no consensus for contested speedy deletions means overturn. This case fits neither category clearly: the deletion is based on a discussion, but at AN, not at XfD. In my view, this deletion is more akin to a speedy deletion than to a XfD deletion: the AN discussion was not held in a deletion-related forum, was not focused on the question of deletion, has no formal closure with respect to that (or any other) question that could be reviewed here, and it cannot be properly relisted.
Consequently, treating this deletion as a speedy deletion, it is overturned. To avoid having to mass un-delete and possibly re-delete of the other 3'000 or so similar redirects, I suggest that somebody nominate this redirect at RfD, as a test case for whether to delete or keep all the other redirects as well. Sandstein 13:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The deletion happened as a result of the WP:AN/I discussion. The problem was the sheer scale of creation by an unapproved automated process of over 1000 redirects. It was the R part of WP:BRD. I think Guarapiranga needs to have a reason for creating each individual redirect so that thought is given to each one. Guarapiranga has also failed to listen to the community discussion on WP:AN/I where no one supported creation of redirects for the name of very person that died in the 9/11 attacks. Sure if someone is notable, create an article on the person, or if there is some real information on the target, then make a redirect. I will see if I can find the ANI discussion in the archive. Out of the deleted set I have already restored one: Christine Egan as it was converted to an article which at least has a claim of importance.
Thanks, Graeme; I had linked the discussion at AN/I in my intro (as well as that at the AfD, and at the redirects' target talk page). I did listen to the community discussion on WP:AN/I, and accepted your bulk deletion of the redirects; as I said, I'd just like to better understand why these redirects, and other similar ones, need to be deleted on their own merit. It's not true, however, that no one supported creation of redirects for the name of every person that died in the 9/11 attacks:
BilledMammal said current policy tolerates these redirects;
While some editors argued the redirects were a problem bc they taxed the NPP backlog, Hey man im josh, who reviewed them, said he didn't whink we should take the NPP backlog into consideration when deciding whether articles or redirects are valid or appropriate to create;
While some expressed fear that any living person who shares a name with any of those victims will instantly become known for sharing a name with a victim, if these redirects hit google, HumanxAnthro argued that how accurately non-notable individuals are presented on Google searches isGoogle's problem, not Wikipedia's;
Regarding the sheer scale of creation by an unapproved automated process of over 1000 redirects, Qwerfjkl said mass creating redirects shouldn't be considered a problem, as he's also done it in the past.
Finally, the core of that discussion at AN/I was WP:MEATBOT, as indicated by the incident heading, not the redirects in their own right (even the editor who reported the incident said that the merits of the redirects at that point were the least of her concern). That's why I raised the question here, so we can discuss the redirects in their own right, whether they can be created, even if by non-automated means, and, again, to better understand why they need to be deleted on their own merit, if that's the case. — Guarapiranga☎ 07:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would note that my full comment was On one hand, this is clearly a WP:MEATBOT and WP:FAIT issue. On the other hand, my experience at AfD and RfD regarding non-notable early Olympians suggests that current policy tolerates these redirects, to the point of sometimes creating disambiguation pages when there are multiple articles mentioning different non-notable individuals by the same name.
I would also note that I wasn't entirely correct; such disambiguation pages are forbidden by WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
Moving forward, I would suggest that if you wish to recreate these redirects you seek consensus to do so by submitting a bot approval request. Before doing so, I would also suggest you work out which redirects would be inappropriate due to multiple non-notable people with the same name being mentioned in Wikipedia, and excluding them from your creation processes.
This doesn't guarantee that you will get consensus for their creation, but it does make it possible. BilledMammal (talk)
I would suggest that if you wish to recreate these redirects you seek consensus to do so by submitting a bot approval request. I'd first like to understand what exactly is the policy in this regard, independently of them being created semi-automatically or not (and whether WP:POLICY requires that manually created redirects to non-notable people in lists and articles—e.g. Mary McKinney, Grace Nelsen Jones, Mary Margaret Smith, Margaret Skeete, etc—also be deleted).
Before doing so, I would also suggest you work out which redirects would be inappropriate due to multiple non-notable people with the same name being mentioned in Wikipedia, and excluding them from your creation processes. The notable people on that list don't need redirects; by definition, they have articles of their own (or should have). The issue is precisely with the redirects to non-notable people names in the article. Why do you say that would be inappropriate? Doesn't WP:N establish that when notable topics are not given standalone pages, redirection pages and disambiguation can be used to direct readers searching for such topics to the appropriate articles and sections within them? — Guarapiranga☎ 08:39, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Robert Chin. A man by that name was one of the victims in 9/11, but a different man by the same name was a candidate in the 2020 Jamaican general election. A redirect should not go to the list of 9/11 victims, because it will confuse and surprise readers looking for the election candidate. BilledMammal (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what dab pages are for? — Guarapiranga☎ 00:42, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No - see WP:NOTDIRECTORY. However, even if it was, you would need to make sure you create dab pages there rather than redirects. BilledMammal (talk) 01:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I see in WP:NOTDIRECTORY regarding dab pages is that Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith, which is not the case here (of listing every person named Robert Chin in his dab page, to take your example), just the notable ones, but that this is [under discussion], and clearly contradicts the very WP:N policy it links to:
Except these redirects are clearly not notable people...? Why would we create a DAB just for collecting non-notable topics with the same name? JoelleJay (talk) 05:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the deleted set I have already restored one: Christine Egan as it was converted to an article which at least has a claim of importance. There we are; that was precisely one of my aims: for the redirect pages to work as placeholders, and be progressively replaced by articles as WP acknowledges people's notability. — Guarapiranga☎ 08:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that, given the controversy around this situation, it needs a BRFA or at least some sort of clear consensus, even if it's not explicitly disallowed by policy. Also, re 4. above, mass-creating redirects still needs consensus. See Novem Linguae and Rosguil's comments in the linked discussion. ― Qwerfjkltalk 12:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse After reading the ANI (not formally closed), there appeared to be consensus to delete the mass creation of redirects. From a process standpoint, the redirect target, List of victims of the September 11 attacks was created by the nominator on May 28. By June 21 several thousand redirects were created. The creation of the redirects were brought to ANI on June 27. By June 28, all of the redirects were deleted by Graeme Bartlett. On July 12, Guarapiranga brought the redirect up for discussion, where it was closed a couple hours later. --Enos733 (talk) 16:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Overturn I'm not sure what I would think on the merits, but there should have been an RfD rather than deleting thousands of pages out of process due to a discussion at a conduct venue. The RfD brought up by Enos733 would have been the right process, but the deletion being reviewed here unduly short-circuited it This, incidentally, is another instance of the "strict CSD regulars like me say that a certain type of deletion is disallowed, admins in other parts of the community carry it out anyway" give-take that I mentioned at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Adding to Non-criteria list section. I was hoping that the list would be deleted and this would become moot, but the AfD was closed as keep in a closure that IMO doesn't reflect the consensus but I couldn't be bothered to bring it to DRV, so here we are .... * Pppery *it has begun... 16:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Considering WP:FAIT, WP:ONUS, and WP:MEATBOT, I don't think the onus should be on editors to get consensus for their deletion; instead, it should be on editors to get consensus for their creation. BilledMammal (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS is a section of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and there is no dispute that all of these names are verifiable, so is inapplicable here. WP:MEATBOT as written, is inapplicable here since it only requires that human editors [...] pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity, and there's no evidence Guarapiranga didn't do so. The WP:FAIT argument is a reassertion of Hut 8.5's claim about the feasibility of a mass RfD, which I've already responded to below. Anyway, as I see it the only thing relevant to determining whether a speedy deletion is valid is Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, and mass creations shouldn't be special enough to ignore the standard way deletion on Wikipedia works, which places the onus on deleters. * Pppery *it has begun... 23:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
there's no evidence Guarapiranga didn't do so. Thanks, Pppery; indeed I tried my best at ensuring I was expanding WP in a positive direction, while fully complying with policy (particularly WP:N and WP:MASSCREATE). Unfortunately, it wasn't well received. — Guarapiranga☎ 00:49, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS talks about the fact that verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion; the names are verifiable, but that doesn't guarantee inclusion, and the onus is on Guarapiranga to get a consensus for that. As for WP:MEATBOT, the issue is that these are large scale and high speed edits that are potentially contrary to consensus; consensus should be demonstrated first. BilledMammal (talk) 01:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's talking about informationfor inclusion in an article, which is not the case here; and
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, thus placing the requirement of consensus after dispute, as usual, not before it.
Endorse while ANI definitely isn't a usual venue for deletion discussions, it is occasionally used for bulk deletion in cases where one person creates a lot of problematic pages. I remember a case a few years ago where one user created a few hundred articles with serious original research problems, and it was eventually decided that they should all be deleted instead of expecting editors to AfD them one by one. There is a general expectation that large scale page creations should be discussed somewhere beforehand, something reflected in the bot policy, and I suspect an RfD of several thousand redirects would not have been feasible. Hut 8.5 17:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
By my count there are under 900 nominations on that log page, so a lot fewer than the approximately 3,000 9/11 victims, and the nominators didn't actually follow proper procedure since none of the redirects were tagged (at least none of the random sample I picked were). More importantly there were a lot more differences between each of the redirects which led to some being kept. Hut 8.5 17:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the nominators didn't actually follow proper procedure since none of the redirects were tagged What would've been the proper procedure? Do you mean in creating or deleting them?
Hut 8.5 means that the nominators of the 2015 discussions I linked to as an example to try to refute his claim that RfDing these redirects instead of deleting them out of process would have been infeasible failed to properly tag the redirects they nominated with {{subst:rfd}}, and that specific sentence is not making any comment about the redirects you created. * Pppery *it has begun... 23:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks, Pppery. I clearly dived into the deep end in this whole adventure. — Guarapiranga☎ 00:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussions you've linked to suggest that it is sometimes OK to create large numbers of redirects without discussion. That doesn't mean that it's always OK - if people object to it, or might object to it, then it ought to be discussed somewhere first. Hut 8.5 12:06, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, Hut 8.5. Except that discussion at AN/I wasn't a calm and collected debate over the pros and cons of the redirects that people might disagree with, but felt rather more like a public lynching, in which some editors expressed quite a lot of anger, as if I had broken some very fundamental rule, not as if it were part and parcel of the usual WP:CYCLE, as you say, Hut 8.5. What I'm asking here is: what is that rule, if it exists at all? Your answer indicates to me it doesn't, as the redirects are simply subject to editors' consensus, and those accusations at ANI were absolutely unfounded and unfair. — Guarapiranga☎ 06:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and if the RfC supports the creation of these redirects, restore them. The approximately 3,000 redirects that were deleted did not meet any of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. The guideline Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects says: "Reasons for creating and maintaining redirects include: ... Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)"
Using Marie Rose Abad as an example, there is a good faith argument that this is a valid redirect since Marie Rose Abad is one of the people listed at List of fatal victims of the September 11 attacks. If only a handful of redirects had been created, I would say the redirects should all be undeleted and discussed at a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. However, approximately 3,000 redirects were created without prior community consensus.
Any large-scale automated or semi-automated content page creation task must be approved at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval. This requirement initially applied to articles, but has since been expanded to include all "content pages", broadly meaning pages designed to be viewed by readers through the mainspace. These include articles, most visible categories, files hosted on Wikipedia, mainspace editnotices, and portals. While no specific definition of "large-scale" was decided, a suggestion of "anything more than 25 or 50" was not opposed. It is also strongly encouraged (and may be required by BAG) that community input be solicited at WP:Village pump (proposals) and the talk pages of any relevant WikiProjects. Bot operators must ensure that all creations are strictly within the terms of their approval.
Alternatives to simply creating mass quantities of content pages include creating the pages in small batches or creating the content pages as subpages of a relevant WikiProject to be individually moved to public facing space after each has been reviewed by human editors. While use of these alternatives does not remove the need for a BRFA, it may garner more support from the community at large.
Note that while the WP:MEATBOT-like creation of non-content pages (such as redirects from systematic names, or maintenance categories) is not required to go through a formal BRFA by default, WP:MEATBOT still applies.
Human editors are expected to pay attention to the edits they make, and ensure that they do not sacrifice quality in the pursuit of speed or quantity. For the purpose of dispute resolution, it is irrelevant whether high-speed or large-scale edits that a) are contrary to consensus or b) cause errors an attentive human would not make are actually being performed by a bot, by a human assisted by a script, or even by a human without any programmatic assistance. No matter the method, the disruptive editing must stop or the user may end up blocked. However, merely editing quickly, particularly for a short time, is not by itself disruptive.
As suggested at Wikipedia:Bot policy#Mass page creation, mass page creations should be discussed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) first. I recommend that this DRV is closed with a referral to starting an RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to discuss whether these 3,000 redirects should be created. If the RfC supports the creation of these redirects, the 3,000 redirects should be restored. If the RfC opposes the creation of these redirects or achieves no consensus to create these redirects, the 3,000 redirects should not be restored.
