Chronovisor – Redirect to Time travel claims and urban legends#The Chronovisor, which seems to be the best target; feel free to take it to WP:RFD if a different target is desired. Under my discretion, I will also restore the history underneath the redirect, as there is no compelling policy-based reason why it should remain hidden, and the AfD did not achieve any such consensus regarding the article history.King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was closed as: delete. Can be redirected to time viewer if somebody writes it up there (with sources). However, the (brief) writing up with sources had already been done, and one of the participants had already noted that fact in the AfD, something the closer has evidently missed. The discussion should have been closed as "redirect", as that would address the concern of the "delete" side (lack of notability), while accommodating the "merge" option, which two editors presented (one as an alternative to deletion, the other as a second choice to keeping). I don't see any justification for deleting the history of the page: it's not enough here that some participants perceived its content as being of low quality (words like"hoax" were mentioned, but I think it should by now be obvious that what is a hoax is the topic of the article, not the article itself). – Uanfala (talk) 11:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect. At the broad brush level there is no consensus, especially when one of the delete !voters later said "I am increasingly supportive of a merge" (albeit without adjusting their bolding), but looking deeper a redirect would indeed seem to be compatible with almost all voter's comments. Discussions about what and how much about the topic to include at the target is a matter for the talk page of that article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any actual desire to merge the content anywhere? If not then there's no need to restore the history, just redirect it. The article was unsourced apart from two fringe sources written by people who believe that the subject actually exists, as a result they have zero credibility. Nor does the content sound very encyclopedic at all, as it relates various incredible claims without much criticism. Hut 8.5 11:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption here seems to be that redirecting should by default involve the deletion of the history unless there's strong consensus to do something with that content right away. My understanding, on the other hand, is that the relevant page history under a redirect shouldn't be deleted unless there's a reason to, for example, if the content meets a CSD or if there's specific consensus that this content should be deleted. – Uanfala (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is the same as Uanfala's - "redirect" and "delete and redirect" outcomes are distinct, the first can be implemented by anybody the latter only by administrators. That there is no content worth merging is an opinion but not one that gained a consensus of those participating in the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reason to delete the content, which was echoed by many people in the discussion - the content was very poor quality and consequently shouldn't be added to any other article. If a merge is not an option then there is no reason to retain the edit history. Hut 8.5 07:43, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there was no consensus that the content was very poor quality so whether and if so what to merge needs further discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus was to delete the article and a large part of the reason for that was that the content was very poor quality, so it's fair to delete the article rather than just redirecting it. The deleted article did take seriously the possibility that somebody managed to photograph the crucifixion of Jesus, this is not content which can be used anywhere else without a near-total rewrite and some sourced which aren't fringe. Hut 8.5 11:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While the discussion was closed as delete, the point of this review is that that wasn't actually the consensus of the discussion. The discussion concluded that there should not be a stand-alone article, but there were multiple comments that recommended a merge, with multiple comments indicating those advocating for complete deletion had misunderstood the article or its sources, indeed one participant explicitly moved from delete to merge during the discussion which does strengthen those arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually only one person supported a merge, and that person also supported deletion as well. One of the two Keep comments provided a source but that doesn't argue in favour of a merge because the deleted article didn't cite that source and (more importantly) wasn't based on it, so at best that's an argument to write some more content about it. The other Keep comment provided a link to a student programming contest, which definitely isn't a usable source. Delete is a far better closure. Hut 8.5 17:50, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that's not the same content as the deleted version. Hut 8.5 18:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Time_travel_claims_and_urban_legends#The_Chronovisor is not the same content as the deleted version. It's less credulous, and could be sourced using a citation to Paul Nahins book. Unfortunately at the time of the AfD I overlooked that article. If I'd known about it, I'd have advised a redirect to it since, as a collection of unsubstantiated real-world claims, it is a much better target...whereas the focus of time viewer is fictional mentions of a hypothetical device. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are nine foreign-language articles available (Google results w/translation links) filled with potential references and starting material, including skeptical, for any editor wishing to create and publish a better article for English Wikipedia. If a redirect is set up in the meantime, I agree it should be Time_travel_claims_and_urban_legends#The_Chronovisor and not Time viewer. When you search for Chronovisor on Wikipedia, the Time travel claims article is at the top of the results, so it fits. 5Q5|✉ 11:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Although closer has waiver at their talk page directing AfD discussion to DRV, some discussion occurred with closer reiterating their close that WP:NOT trumps any other argument. Numerically !votes were 6:5 (including nomination) keep/deletion, with one of the latter a delete/draftify. Nomination's claim that concept could be covered elsewhere was refuted in the discussion (and not counter-refuted). Discussion hinged on whether or not WP:NOTDICT applied. Close appears as a supervote, drawing no analysis from the discussion for why the article's three-week status as a stub falls foul of WP:NOTDICT: "Both dictionary entries at Wiktionary and encyclopedia articles at Wikipedia may start out as stubs, but they are works in progress, to be expanded. " (emphasis added). No indication that this is not a work in progress (especially given the article creator), keep contributions all indicated adequate referencing available to allow expansion, which was not refuted. There was no discussion or reference to any policy that stub status alone requires deletion. Overturn to keep. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn there is no policy or guideline that favors the deletion of stubs about notable topics on the grounds that they resemble dictionary entries. There are plenty of sources so the article needs expansion not deletion (t · c) buidhe 01:00, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
:Overturn to no consensus the delete arguments are predicated on WP:NOTDICTIONARY with very little explanation. Several keep arguments provide explanations refuting this, and show that the article could easily be expanded based on sources available. FrankAnchor 01:37, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus, having not seen the original article. However, the argument that one sentence was only a dictionary definition can just as reasonably be an argument to keep in order to expand, so that the supervote was a supervote. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. The delete !votes were extremely weak and did not even attempt to refute the detailed arguments in favour of keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, it seems that little effort was made to reach consensus, through either expansion from the sources to show it could be more than a dictionary definition, or by refuting the claims of notability. SailingInABathTub (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn bad close: we do not simply judge articles as is at AfD, but also their potential for improvement. The close statement appeared to misstate policy. Either keep, per the numbers, or relist would be acceptable outcomes; 'no consensus' seems to be at odds with the fact that keep !votes were an absolute majority and the delete rationale was effectively argued against by the keep proponents. — Charles Stewart(talk) 12:52, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
