- Girl Meets World (TV Series) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This discussion pertained to a redirect for a TV series which has been announced but not yet begun production, to Girl Meets World. Girl Meets World is a spinoff from the former television series Boy Meets World and two of the original series' cast members have announced that they will be in the cast of the spinoff. Girl Meets World is itself currently a redirect to Boy Meets World#Sequel series but is likely to become a proper article in the not too distant future. The RfD discussion had a consensus in favor of keeping the redirect, yet the closing admin closed the discussion as "delete". Another RfD participant queried the closing admin about the deletion, but the closing admin declined to change his decision. I request that the closing admin's decision be overturned because the decision was against consensus and the resulting double redirect would have been fixed by a bot anyway. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn Any human editor with a passing knowledge or redirects could have fixed that making the double redirect problem a non-issue. I also don't see how any of this would make the now deleted redirect any less plausable. Combined with the fact that no one other than the nominator wanted this deleted this should have never been deleted in the in the first place since the consensus is clear.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 07:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. I'm the editor who queried this with the closer, and my comments at Ruslik0's talk (linked above) still stand. The assertion in the closing statement that {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} would no longer apply is incorrect, {{R to section}} would additionally be applicable. In his reply to me, Ruslik0 stated that nobody recommended retargetting as a reason to delete, but the target was still an article when everyone but Metropolitan90 commented so a retarget !vote from them would have required a crystal ball. The consensus is clear that everyone commenting believed that there should be a redirect from this title to the information about the forthcoming TV series, the location of that information changing does not change that. Thryduulf (talk) 10:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As a personal opinion I doubt anyone would search for "... (TV Series)" so I suspect the redirect is pretty useless at this point, however given the discussion I don't see that delete was a sensible outcome. I also think the bringing of this DRV was a little premature, the discussion with the closing admin didn't look "complete" to me, so perhaps this still could have been resolved with further discussion there. Given that the closer stated the stuff about reading minds etc. I would have thought then that he sees the corrected redirect as a viable outcome if he'd thought about it, so I assume wouldn't have had a problem with it just being recreated (taking that deletion discussion are never "final" anyway). --62.254.139.60 (talk) 12:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Closers must close on the basis of the discussion. If something important needs saying but is unsaid, then say it in a !vote, not a supervote. -SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I also strongly disagree with the suggestion that the admin made that he/she can't read minds. Since the only way to determine that there was a consensus was to delete would be that the people who voted keep would have been against retargeting to an article that Girl Meets world currently redirects to (Most of the comments happened when that was an article) would require a great level of mind reading on their part. Now if the people revered their votes due to this fact that would be a different matter but it should not be up to a third party to make that determination.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 22:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sarcasm is not only the lowest form of wit but also transfers badly through text. Please remove or redact your comment or you may find your views given less weight when this is closed. Consensus is based on analysis of content/actions against policy not personal opinion about the author/person making the action so opinions based on that should be given much less weight. Spartaz Humbug! 09:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While what you say about sarcasm is undoubtedly true, I don't see it as relevant here. The comment about reading minds is a direct response to the closer's response to my questioning this closure (second paragraph of this diff) where he said that as nobody said to retarget it and they (rusliko) cannot read minds, the only course of action was to delete it. The anon's response above is simply saying that in the absence of anyone reversing their votes (although they did typo that as "revering" it's clear what they meat) due to the target being merged, it is not possible to know that the commenters' opinions changed from keeping the redirect to deleting it without reading minds. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn There seems to be no way to read the community consensus here as delete. The closing admin offers a vote that was rebutted by the participants in the actual discussion and that could easily have been addressed through bypassing the double redirect. We could save a lot of time if we just allowed admins to be judge, jury and executioner, but as we work here based on consensus it probably would serve better if closing admins limited themselves to interpreting consensus, rather than overriding it. Alansohn (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. Rejecting clear community consensus in the absence of any discernible basis in applicable policy is simply an abuse of administrative privileges. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - straight abuse. We have a bot that retargets double redirects, so there's a long-standing consensus about what to do with them, and it ain't delete. WilyD 09:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - The redirect target underwent significant change (became a redirect itself) on 26 December 2012 during the 11 December to 31 December 2012 RfD discussion, creating a double redirect. Three of those iVoting keep failed in their XfD participation obligation to return to the RfD before the close to update their positions in view of an significant change of circumstances, making their positions largely inapplicable to the closing decision. The fourth iVote was from an editor who commented after the redirect target became a redirect itself. However, that editor merely incorporated two of those inapplicable keep positions as an argument without argument (See Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions), essentially creating four logically fallacious keep positions with little to no strength of argument. Seems to me that those of you above who merely are looking at four "Keep" positions to imply/assert that Ruslik0 somehow did a grievous wrong are yourselves abusing your iVote in this DRV and contributing to a hostile environment. Boy Meets World has been around since 19 September 2002 without anyone finding a need to create a Boy Meets World (TV Series) redirect, so I doubt that valid consensus would support a Girl Meets World (TV Series) redirect. Relist to allow further discussion. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects are not articles and RfDs are not AfDs. By recommending keeping, people are saying that the redirect is a useful search term and the content should remain accessible to people looking for that term. That the content has moved is not a significant change in circumstances - it still exists and people still need to be able to find it - double redirects are regularly and routinely fixed by a bot, so this is not an issue that RfD participants need to be concerned about. What other redirects do or do not exist is irrelevant (WP:WAX) - the only question addressed in the RfD is "Is Girl Meets World (TV Series) a useful redirect to the content we have about a TV series called "Girl Meets World", and the answer to that question was unanimously "yes". None of the reasons given for keeping were made invalid by the merging of the content which is why I didn't feel it necessary to update my !vote. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, none of the people calling for the redirect to be kept made their support conditional on whether or not the original target was merged or even implied it. The fact that one of the participants has now specifically said that they stand by their original assertion despite the merge strengthens the case for restring it. It should also be noted that the original target was retargeted to has a section on Girl Meets World (the place where a retargted redirect would lead users) so that is also not an issue. I see no reason to relist.--70.49.81.44 (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn per WilyD. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
