Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrastructures

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect and protect. --BDD (talk) 23:53, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infrastructures[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable band. Does not meet WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Unreferenced, unsigned band with no albums or singles released by a notable label. The creator of the article has a conflict of interest as they are one of the founders of the band.

I had previously reverted the article, but after the fifth revert by the creator, I am bringing the article to AfD. The article was previously a redirect to Infrastructure. Should this discussion result in finding that the band is not notable enough for inclusion, I am requesting that the outcome of the AfD be a restoration of the article back to the redirect instead of a delete to restore the status quo. The previous redirect is linked to be multiple articles, so the redirect is beneficial. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect - nothing to suggest this passes WP:BAND or WP:GNG. Stalwart111 04:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revert and redirect to Infrastructure. Protect if necessary. Notability is not even asserted for this band. No claims for passing WP:BAND. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the band, restore the redirect, and protect. There is no reason for this to point anywhere else or contain any other content, absent a discussion reaching consensus to that effect. bd2412 T 21:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since the nominator is explicitly not requesting deletion, this should not have been brought to AfD. If you want a page protected, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Requests for page protection; even if this AfD closes with a resolution to redirect and protect, it would still need to go through the WP:RFP process, so this is just wasting time. I'd close this as speedy keep but one !vote above does say "delete" so I can't really say no arguments for deletion have been presented. BTW, page protection is kind of the nuclear option; since there's only one COI editor involved, it is probably a better idea to pursue a block against them. — Gwalla | Talk 21:42, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But not that out-of-process is it? The article was deleted twice as A7 but was recreated and then it was blanked/redirected (rather than delete/redirected) after that. Its not really necessary for the article to go through the RFPP process in addition to AFD is it? Plenty of AFD's close as delete/WP:SALT and the titles are protected against recreation - wouldn't this be the same. In this case, the redirect would be protected to prevent recreation. That would just be at the discretion of the closing admin, yeah? If someone wants to recreate it they can take it to DRV and they have an AFD as a reference-point. Stalwart111 23:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started at WP:RFPP but withdrew the request after the fifth revert and started the AfD. I withdrew the RFPP because if the reviewing admin there protected the "wrong version" and left the article as was about the band, I couldn't revert it back because of 3RR. The band member edits did not fall under any of the 3RR exemptions as they were made in good faith, so I couldn't continue reverting as this is fundamentally a content dispute. I didn't think it would be a good idea to ask the RFPP admin to revert the page and then semi-protect the RFPP admins are supposed to not get involved in content disputes. I didn't want to put the RFPP admin in a position of being involved in a content dispute and then using the tools to "win" the dispute. That is also why I didn't revert and apply semi-protection myself, delete the article, or block the band member. So I thought about what I could do to the article to get it back to the status quo:

I can't keep reverting it.
I didn't think deleting it myself under CSD A7 and restoring the two edits from 2004/2008 like StephenBuxton did since I was involved (using a broad reading of involved).
I thought PRODing it would probably result in the PROD being removed by the band member since it obvious they are trying really hard to get it published, so that was going to be worthless. And then I'd also have to explain to the reviewing admin that I wanted a partial delete and hope they noticed.
I could have CSD A7 tagged it and hoped that the reviewing admin would restore the two redirect edits like StephenBuxton did, but again how would I guarantee that? And the band member would likely just resume overwriting the redirect since he already did it once before (though I hadn't noticed this fact until after I started the AfD).

So I decided to take it to AfD because then a clear community consensus could be established that the article about the band doesn't belong here at this time. The band member would then be unable to continue overwriting the redirect without going against community consensus. Those subsequent edits could then be acted upon through appropriate means. I felt this article was a gray area because the article was previously a redirect. If it had been some standalone article, I would have deleted the article myself under CSD A7 like the thousands of band articles I've deleted before, protected the article from recreation, and have been done with this. Should I have done it anyways? Maybe, but I thought it would still be better to get a community consensus instead acting solely on my own because of the past history as a redirect. Sorry for being long-winded, but I wanted to explain my thought process for this admittedly unusual AfD. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.