- Don't bite the newbies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
appears to have been speedily deleted, is linked from ~55 pages (discussion with deleting admin) —rybec 21:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- My initial reaction is that if it's only gathered 55 links during the 7 years it's been deleted, then it obviously isn't that confusing to use the project space links. Having looked though at about a dozen or so of those links, they all predate the deletion, and others not looked at I would have a pretty good guess are likewise. I don't really see the problem you are trying to solve here. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I also have the impression that most of the links predate the deletion. As I explained in my discussion with the deleting administrator, if the page is restored, those links will work again. That is my motivation. —rybec 00:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I very much doubt that many of those will be read and many not relevant from 7+ years ago - we've moved on. If they are read then title used is pretty self explanatory as to what it would have been about. Is it really needed that we have such a link (esp given that the destination would of course have been edited many times then, so beyond the basic context linking doesn't tell you what the original author was actually linking to). Sorry but this sounds like a waste of time, in the grand scheme of the project to build an online encyclopedia, this has to be pretty near the bottom of the list for anyone to be worrying about. If it really bothers you do the few edits to fix the existing ones to point to the current destination, you would easily have been able to complete that by now. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the only content this page has ever had is a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. I'm not sure what value is to be had by restoring the page; if it's still linked to on any active page wouldn't it be better to simply fix the link? Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]
- Yes, I gathered that it had been a redirect, as described. Is it really simpler or preferable to refactor comments than to have a redirect? Presumably the reason that discussions are sometimes archived rather than being deleted is because someone may still want to read them. Breaking links in them diminishes their readability. —rybec 01:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Permit recreation. The speedy deletion was blatantly incorrect, as WP:ASR is not a valid speedy deletion criterion, and WP:CSD#R2 explicitly excludes article space to Wikipedia: space redirects. I don't see the value in procedurally overturning a deletion from 7.5 years ago though, so I recommend that recreation be permitted without prejudice to an RfD discussion if anybody wants one. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment editors might find it useful to see the version of CSD in place at the time of the deletion. [1]. Also the version of ASR in place at the time of deletion is at [2]. Spartaz Humbug! 18:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither of those page versions permitted the speedy deletion of this redirect any more than the current ones do. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I doubt Spartaz was trying to draw a conclusion as to if the pages did or didn't permit speedy deletion, more putting links there so those interested could look without everyone individually digging back into the history. Regardless were the speedy criteria by the letter met isn't the only question to answer (Unless of course you follow the non-prescriptive "rules" in a prescriptive manner). One such question might be was the encyclopedia improved by the action? Similarly has there been a detriment to the encyclopedia in the intervening 7 years as a result of it? Would the encyclopedia be improved by restoring it now (rather than simply fixing the broken links, or recreating it)? --86.5.93.42 (talk) 00:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Admins deleting any page for any reason other than (a) that page meeting the letter and spirit of one or more criteria for speedy deletion, or (b) there being an explicit consensus to delete the page always harms the encyclopaedia - if it didn't then there would be no need for deletion discussions or speedy deletion criteria as any admin could delete any page for any reason they felt like. In this specific case the harm is not great and so, as I noted above, the best way to improve the encyclopaedia is to accept, but not endorse, the deletion and permit recreation. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yesm what '86 said. The deletion was 7 years ago and policy has moved on. A convience link to what policy sait at the time might be considered useful to some and, if I close this, I would probably need to look at previous as well as current policy to judge the consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 06:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "always harms the encyclopaedia" in your view perhaps, but not in the view of policies like WP:NOTBUREAU, which form part of the core policies of wikipedia and has a broad consensus, merely asserting your disagreement doesn't make it reality. However, if the prevailing view at the time was that such redirects were not to be used and that deletion of them wasn't questioned, that is a consensus to speedy delete them. This is the whole descriptive, not prescriptive nature of things, policy documents what we do and sometimes lags that, for some things policy documentation never catches up (since the underlying issue is resolved and not recurring there is no real need to actually document it). In this case I can see a whole raft of these deleted in a similar time frame, that this is the case suggests that there was no issue with the deletion of these (or that they were challenged and upheld, haven't checked). For example: What is Wikipedia, What is an article, What Wikipedia Is Not, Wanted photos, Vanity article, User subpage and many more. That really suggests to me that the prevailing opinion was that removing these was not controversial. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 11:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- List at RfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- List at RFD while it true that some cross space redirects can be speedy deleted this is not one of them. The criteria R2 covering what cross space redirects can be deleted states Redirects, apart from shortcuts, from the main namespace to any other namespace except the Category:, Template:, Wikipedia:, Help: and Portal: namespaces. Since the target page was part of Wikipedia space it was not a valid deletion and I see no harm in a full discussion.--174.93.163.194 (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- List at RfD per the above reasoning. No harm will come of having a full discussion about it. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:02, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Permit recreation - which allows for listing at RfD. The passage of so much time without challenge to the 11 August 2006 speedy deletion[3] provides consensus for the original deletion. Reason #6 for deleting a redirect listed at WP:RFD#DELETE lists a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace, so it is not likely that such a redirect will be kept. However, Rybec's request to address the 55 pages that link to Don't bite the newbies[4] is reasonable. Permit recreation. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Remain deleted -- I'm generally wary of WP:XNRs and this one wasn't used nearly enough for me to consider it a strong exception, despite the age. Nobody's said a word about it since 2006 (meaning it is not a problem), and I'm not inclined to allow the creation of what would constitute a brand new cross-namespace redirect from article-space to project-space, as these are normally not allowed. Alternatively, I'd settle for an RfD listing, but I have confidence the consensus would arrive to the same conclusion (as it usually does in cases like this) and don't think the full weight of an RfD is needed for such an apparently simple matter. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|