- Lucciano Pizzichini (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Deletion discussion decision agreed "delete and redirect to List of child music prodigies." But it does not meet the specification for this list, where the criterion is "a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer". Therefore it should just be straightforwardly deleted. Smerus (talk) 10:08, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's a mess. AfD can't force material into an article. So RfD is probably the best way forward. But we're here and no reason to send you off, potentially in circles. overturn to delete unless someone has a better redirect target. Hobit (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete per nom. The redirect would likely be deleted at RfD anyway because the target article doesn't mention the search term, but overturning the AfD result is cleaner. Hut 8.5 18:00, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Consensus in that debate was clearly to delete and redirect, there was no other way to read it as the closer. Happy to acknowledge that maybe the participants got it wrong about the destination of the article. In my view this DRV should probably be closed and sent to RfD, that way the discussion can be frequented by the people that normally would come across it. Understand about the circles element but the correct venue is important to ensuring appropriate participation. Daniel (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, and will be, no mention of the subject at the redirect target. So the outcome of the RfD is forgone. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I think the thing here is that as it was agreed to delete the article on the grounds of non-notability, there is absolutely no case for adding the subject to a WP list. WP lists by their nature should be either of people who have an article or deserve an article; see WP:SAL - "Being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines."--Smerus (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies if you know this, but AfD participants agreed to redirect to another page, which happens frequently when a topic isn't notable enough for a standalone article but the information could be included elsewhere. You're reading WP:SAL incorrectly here, because that refers to the list, not the items in the list. SportingFlyer T·C 15:54, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, interesting point; I am wrapping my head around whether a list can be notable in its own right whilst its constituents are allowed to be not notable, but I guess that question is for another platform. Best,--Smerus (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-notable things are often found on lists. The problem is that there is local consensus at that list article for who to put on the article--it's even in the article's text. And this person doesn't meet that criteria. So we have the following choices as an encyclopedia:
- Not add this person to the list and delete the redirect to the article.
- Not add this person to the list but keep the redirect.
- Claim that AfD has the power to force this person onto the list and keep the redirect.
- Not add this person to the list and send to RfD to delete the redirect.
- I can't see how any outcome other than 1 could make any sense. Those endorsing are either picking 2 or 3 or planning on waiting for 4. Hobit (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse This was the only possible way to close this poorly attended discussion. The only question is whether we just go ahead and delete the redirect from here or if we take care of it at RfD - I'm not sure I have a preference... SportingFlyer T·C 15:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this person is mentioned in a few other lists and list-sections of articles so while an RfD would probably end in delete I don't think we can be certain it definitely would be. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to get ever more ridiculous. He is listed in these other lists with a redirect to the article Lucciano Pizzichini. So one quick answer could in theory be, e.g. to make the redirect from the LP article to List of Argentines, and not, as the deletion review had it, to List of child music prodigies.....except that the lede to List of Argentines says that it is a list of Argentines who are notable....and it's just been decided that LP is not notable.... . So the true solution would be a delete - LP will then turn up in those lists as a dead link, and circularity will end.--Smerus (talk) 21:37, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- He's linked to from List of Argentines, a list of the most important people from Argentina, and List of years in jazz, which is mostly a list of years or birth and death for the most significant figures in jazz music. If he's not notable enough for a standalone article then he shouldn't be in those lists. Someone of that name is linked as a minor cast member in the film La suerte en tus manos but I suspect that's a different person with the same name (the subject was 11 when that film was released). Hut 8.5 09:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete I expect the article was created by a promotional editor; there is no history so I can't check this. Clearly shouldn't be on any list article if the article is deleted. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:41, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and delete. A redirect or merge isn't useful here. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse closure. The "delete and redirect" closure reflected consensus in the AfD. If people now are of the view that the person doesn't belong on that list and the redirect therefore makes no sense, that's a matter for WP:RFD and not DRV. Sandstein 10:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see this as a constructive proposal - it merely presents an unnecessary intermediate stage to the inevitable end. If RfD votes to delete, then that seems to meet with the consensus here. If it votes to keep the redirect, it redirects to an article which does not, and should not, mention LP, as he does not meet the specification of the article topic.--Smerus (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You aren't wrong, but WP:BURO seems relevant here. The material isn't in the article and won't be in the article. We can wait longer for RfD, but no one seems to actually think we should have the redirect. Until it gets deleted, we have a redirect to an article that doesn't mention the topic at all. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I took a look at closing this, but I think it'd be more useful to comment instead.If this was an afd that was reasonably closed as "redirect", and the redirect later discovered to be defective - as it looks like if you look only at the DRV discussion here - deletion isn't in DRV's scope, and the redirect should be sent to RFD.Reading the afd itself, I see consensus for deletion, with suggestions to mention the article subject elsewhere but no mention of a redirect except in the close. The reasonable way to interpret this is a delete result, with the redirect having been editorially created by the closer without the weight of AFD behind it. So even overturning this afd to delete - as I agree we should do - shouldn't affect the redirect currently at this title.The way to get the redirect deleted is to either list it at RFD - which uncontentiously handles redirects like this every day - or convince the closer to speedy it himself as a G7. —Cryptic 15:59, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse close - delete redirect under G8: "Deleting pages unambiguously created in error". This should not have come here, as the close followed consensus - the problem is with the redirect not the close. Arguments that we overturn a correct close in order in enact a deletion are not appropriate. Nobody feels that the close was wrong. What everyone agrees is that the redirect should be deleted. I was tempted to close this myself as Endorsed, and then G8 the redirect as a page that is broadly agreed is a redirect that was created in error, but I hesitated as while the Overturn !votes are weak as they do not look at the AfD, looking instead at should the redirect exist, the vote count is in favour of Overturn. It seemed to me that the most useful and least controversial thing to do was add my Endorse !vote and rationale, and offer the valid G8 solution as a deletion outcome is what people want, and that appears to be the quickest and most appropriate way of getting it done. SilkTork (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I can get behind that I suppose. Hobit (talk) 21:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- (Closer) No issue with this as well from my end. I'm not sure if I can technically allow it to be G7'ed given my creation of the redirect was an action from a consensus at an AfD discussion, but realistically we're ending up in procedural semantics there. May be time to bin the minutiae of procedural details and just reach the right outcome somehow. Daniel (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- as the mover of this deletion, I have no problem with the solution proposed by SilkTork. Does this discussion have to be closed first before G8 is applied for?--Smerus (talk) 13:23, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- G8 can occur anytime, but - unless there are serious issues, such as copyvio or blp, we tend not to delete or move an article or page while it is being discussed. At some point an admin will close this discussion and if they agree that consensus is to close as Endorse the AfD and G8 the redirect, they will delete it. SilkTork (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - that would be fine by me, of course.--Smerus (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|
