Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture – clearly endorsed, though I'm surprised that several experienced AfD closers don't agree that it's within the closer's discretion to interpret a consensus to delete as allowing for a redirect per WP:ATD, since I (and the majority of participants here) thought that was a well-established practice. Maybe there should be a follow-up discussion about that. – Joe (talk) 13:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The AfD had 6 delete recommendations (including the nominator) and 1 keep. Two delete supporters also included non-bolded mentions of redirect toward the end of their comments. Liz closed it as redirect.
I approached Liz on her talk page. She pointed to the redirect mentions and cited WP:ATD-R. After further discussion, she clarified on the AfD: But while "Redirect" was not "bolded" in anyone's response, it was mentioned as a possible alternative to deletion by several participants here so I opted for that result. I think that was a possible option open to the closer of this discussion. Since this AfD, Liz also closed WP:Articles for deletion/Julia Bodina as redirect, explaining and altering to delete when the nominator contested it: The consensus was to Delete but a Redirect was proposed as an alternative to deletion so I opted for it.
I believe that Liz gave far too much weight to redirect. This approaches a "left-field supervote" (WP:Supervote#Types of supervoting, essay), but it differs slightly because redirect had some small amount of support.
The position that receives the strongest support amongst responders is that the weight of "merge" and "redirect" arguments is equal to the weight of "keep" and "delete" arguments. A point frequently made in the RfC both by those who supported the consensus view and the vocal minority who favored giving additional weight to "merge" and "redirect" is that the underlying strength of the argument for the position is what matters most. — User:Moonriddengirl16:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Consensus for delete is clear if the extra weight is removed:
Count Splitting the two comments into 2/3 delete and 1/3 redirect, the totals become 5 1/3 delete, 2/3 redirect, and 1 keep, which calculates to 76% support for deleting.
I chose 1/3 as an arbitrary, illustrative value. It is less than 1/2 because I interpret redirect as a less-favored second choice.
Strength No participant presented a full argument for redirecting, although one of the mentions suggested a redirect target.
Side notes:
WP:Deletion review/Purpose 1: if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly.
Comment I thought that a Redirect was a valid alternative to deletion and I don't understand why this option is unacceptable to Flatscan. I don't know how to respond to this mountain of commentary on whether or not redirects should ever be an option. I thought it was within my discretion as a closer to leave a redirect as this option was mentioned by participants, whether or not it was BOLDED. My experience at Deletion review this year has been unpleasant (my good faith judgments as an admin have been called "appalling" and "despicable") and I'm sure that if others here disagree with my decision to leave a redirect, I'll be told so in no uncertain terms. LizRead!Talk! 05:01, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Redirection was only tangentially proposed as an option in the discussion and therefore could not be the consensus outcome of the discussion. While it is true that redirection can be an appropriate alternative to deletion in some cases, it is for AfD participants to determine whether a redirect would make sense in any given case, and not for the closer. In my view, it is only appropriate to close an AfD as "redirect" if there is not outright consensus for this option if the discussion is split between "delete" and "merge" opinions, because in this case a redirect implements the consensus to not keep an article while also allowing the editorial process to determine what if anything should be merged. Here, however, nobody proposed merging anything, and there was near-unanimous consensus to delete. That consensus should have been followed. Sandstein 06:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable exercise of closer discretion, and I'm surprised someone chose to make such a big deal out of this. "Redirect" and "Delete" are functionally equivalent here, either way the article is gone. The appeal is predicated on the assumption that everybody who left a "Delete" comment is opposed to redirecting unless they explicitly said otherwise, which isn't true. None of the Delete comments actually opposed a redirect either. Hut 8.5 08:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect are distinct recommendations/outcomes, per WP:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. A closer has the responsibility to reflect the consensus accurately and precisely. Delete and redirect is a way to fulfill the consensus and keep the redirect, as suggested by another user citing WP:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist) as an example. Regarding your last point, I think it is unreasonable and not within current AfD norms to require a rebuttal to a suggestion lacking a supporting argument. Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Delete comments all gave reasons why the article should not exist. A close of Redirect fulfils this. Per WP:ATD-R AfDs are supposed to consider alternatives to deletion, including redirection, and as you've noticed Delete and Redirect aren't even mutually exclusive outcomes. It's therefore fair to say that a Delete comment which doesn't explicitly oppose redirection, or offer any kind of argument against it, likely doesn't particularly object to redirection instead of deletion. I've been in that situation plenty of times myself. Even you don't seem to be offering any kind of argument as to why the redirect is a bad idea. Hut 8.5 07:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A redirect is obviously appropriate, some participants suggested that option, and no-one presented arguments against it. The arithmetic of bolded votes doesn't matter here. If anyone really believes the redirect should be deleted, then at this stage the appropriate step is to take it to WP:RfD, but I don't think that could result in anything other than snow keep. I would like to add that this close isn't some marginally acceptable borderline case where admin discretion is pushed to its limit. This is exactly how discussions like this should be closed. The focus of AfD is on evaluating whether a given topic should have an article, while the suitability of an article's title as a redirect tends to receive little attention. I've seen a decent number of AfDs with a redirect outcome where most participants voted for it as a softer form of deletion but where the resultant redirect doesn't make sense, and conversely: a fair number of AfDs resulting in deletion where redirecting would have obviously been better. These results aren't due to AfD working as it's supposed to, they're side effects of the tendency for participants and closers to not bother with question of redirect suitability. I believe closers should be encouraged to pay more attention to these aspects and use discretion to decide for redirecting even in cases where no participant has suggested the option. – Uanfala (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I cited DRV Purpose 1 to emphasize that I am challenging the evaluation of consensus. RfD will only come into play after this DRV is settled. Your second paragraph's conclusion is exactly a "left-field supervote". Flatscan (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
endorse If you think the redirect needs to be deleted, take it to WP:RfD. I imagine it would easily survive such a discussion, which is a heck of a sign the redirect is a good idea. We historically do give closers a wide bit of leeway on redirecting rather than deleting at AfD. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and trout for Flatscan: a redirection is basically a de facto deletion--except that the content in the history under the redirect can be accessed by non-admins if they want to improve it or use it elsewhere. WP:ATD-R is policy. Therefore, any delete opinion which didn't address why a redirect was inappropriate isn't a policy-based !vote and was appropriately disregarded by Liz. Sandstein's logic is unsustainable, in that it would require every policy be mentioned to be considered in an AfD. That's not how this works; administrators are expected to know and apply policy appropriately, even when XfD participants do not. Liz gets a gold star from me. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How do you reconcile your opinion with the RfC cited in the nomination? Weighting redirects more versus disregarding deletes is a distinction without a difference, as both give relatively more weight to redirect over delete.
Relying on a non-consensus interpretation of ATD to discard recommendations goes beyond closer discretion and infringes on WP:Consensus.
Your interpretation of ATD is not apparent in a plain reading. It requires cherry-picking If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. from the Editing and discussion subsection (shortcut WP:ATD-E) and twisting it to cover the other ATD subsections and all AfD outcomes.
You've seen everything right in front of your eyes... and aren't putting it together. Deletion is a last resort when nothing else makes sense. In cases that might be covered by G10-11-12 (attack/spam/copyvio) it's clear that nothing should be preserved, nothing should be kept for future merge or resuscitation by an editor with time to fix it. This isn't that. Every "cruft" or "indiscriminate" anything doesn't need that level of correction, nor should it receive it. We work in a place that thrives on the contributions of people obsessed with trivia, and our job is to not discourage them just because some of us happen to be a bit OCD about inclusion criteria. The punitive deletionist mindset goes beyond merely polishing the publicly-facing article space and instead tries to minimize the chance of anyone else contributing anything else in the future. Myopic but well meaning, such punitive deletion advocates are attempting to strangle Wikipedia without realizing it. So yes, ATDs should be normative for things where they make sense, which includes this article. Jclemens (talk) 22:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid choice by the closer that implements the consensus to delete the article. Redirects are cheap. When a redirect seems like it might be in order, it probably is in order. The participants weren't saying that the topic was forbidden. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The redirect target was mentioned and described in the nominating statement (and the second bolded comment accepted a redirect was appropriate). After the relist, 2 of the 4 commentators suggested a redirect or that a good article could be created about "Egypt's representation in fiction". I think that the closer was well within discretion to close as a redirect. --Enos733 (talk) 15:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No rationale given for why a redirect is unacceptable and head counts mean nothing.Slywriter (talk) 15:50, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete per Sandstein. Policy is to be interpreted and applied to individual situations by way of consensus. Individual !voters do not need to explicitly state they are interpreting policy in a certain way if their !votes can be read as such. It is rarely appropriate for closers to determine unilaterally that the contributors' interpretation and application was wrong and substitute their own. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. More discussion is needed on redirect or not redirect. It was mentioned by participants, and has policy mandate under WP:ATD-R and the delete voters did not articulate why not. The nominator User:Zxcvbnm was at more fault than the closer because the nominator named a redirect target and did not argue against a redirect. He called the nominated article a duplicate, aka a content fork, and content forks should be fixed by redirection, unless there is a good reason not to. WP:BEFORE was not followed, and it should be mandatory. The closer erred by glossing over the nominator’s BEFORE failure. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:01, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete It's simple, almost everyone there voted delete except for a single vote with a faulty argument. Nobody voted redirect, therefore the article shouldn't have been redirected and I'm not really sure why it was. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I'm as big a fan as anyone in counting noses at AfD. But do you agree that there is no way RfD would delete this as a redirect? And do you agree that there was no policy-based argument in the AfD for not having a redirect? I'm struggling to understand why folks are think it makes sense to delete a redirect here. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - already relisted once. Redirect to a similar page is preferable to deletion. AFD isn't a vote. Nfitz (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. Consensus was clear. There was no basis to support such a redirect, and the two comments that mentioned redirecting as an alternative failed to cite a relevant policy or guideline to explain why this particular title was justified. Far too much weight was given to these afterthoughts. The above comments about this surviving RFD are at odds with actual practice, as this is a standard candidate for deletion due to the lack of mentions or information regarding "Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture" at the target. ✗plicit 02:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's no information about those deities in popular culture at the target? How about its second section ("Depictions of Egyptian mythology"), which takes up the bulk of the article. It's a deity-by-deity enumeration mostly of portrayals of the deity in popular culture. – Uanfala (talk) 09:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If actual practice is to delete an article where a redirect is discussed and no policy-based reasons are given for not having it (in this case, no reasons at all...), then actual practice needs some improvement. Hobit (talk) 12:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the redirect to point to the correct section of the article (which is 90%+ of the article, but still). Hobit (talk) 12:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse redirect is a valid ATD. The article is gone and the pointer helps the reader. No harm, no foul. I personally find it silly to quibble over redirects as Liz could have deleted this and any user could have made a redirect. It's not strictly within admin control. Can go to RfD if you have an issue with the redirect existing. StarMississippi 01:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Uanfala. The close is spot on. Not to mention that even if we start wikilawyering rather than employing common sense – as is pretty much the basis of this discussion – then this is much more of non-prejudicial supervote than a left-field one. J947 † edits 21:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete ATD says articles 'can', not 'must' be redirected, and there was no consensus in the discussion that it should. "Ancient Egyptian deities in popular culture" is a descriptive phrase which isn't mentioned verbatim at the target so there was no argumentative basis for a redirect, besides the fact that nobody voted for such a thing. If Liz wants to insist on some stray occurrences of the word redirect then she should do as the closers did at WP:Articles for deletion/Ioma Rajapaksa and WP:Articles for deletion/George Lawton (canoeist) and erase the revision history first, which is what the particiants voted for. Avilich (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a good close. A sensible compromise, that avoids deciding immediately what is likely to be a complicated discussion on the basis of few participants Personally, I would have said "keep" had i noticed this, According to current practice, there is a great deal of flexibility in closes. The current practice is the guideline. DGG ( talk ) 08:06, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, While technically its true that there are overwhelming consensus towards delete, but as mentioned by various editors functionally, delete and redirects are same but they are different at the same time. Labelling the closure as a Supervote is possibly too much when the closer indeed exercised their judgement rightly towards the consensus and used some laxity that policy allows. Aren't we getting too pushy when asking for overturn? However, this can become a landmark DRV decision to be used in future. Chirota (talk) 08:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Coco Bandicoot – Closure undone and AfD relisted on my own authority per WP:NACD. Per that guideline, "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to admins", and this DRV shows that early closures are often controversial. Sandstein 06:45, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The discussion was closed less then four hours after it was started. The closer justified their move because there were three calls to redirect in less than an hour. It hasn't even had time to be listed by the deletion sorting system. This doesn't set a good precedent at all. A WP:SNOW clause would have been more convincing if say, the discussion was allowed to run for at least a few more days and more then a dozen people have called for the exact same outcome. An uninvolved administrator should look into the issue and see if WP:BADNAC applies. Haleth (talk) 00:32, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The redirect was undone without consent on May 4. There was no attempt to discuss the undo of the redirect, which sat just fine for nearly nine years. The AFD was so obviously leaning "redirect" in such a short time that there was no reason to drag it out any longer. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And note for the record that this was your own NAC. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relist: As the person who restored the article in the first place, I have to say that this was closed way too quickly. It should be relisted, and given as much time as other AFDs. Also, redirects do not need consent to be undone, per WP:ATD-R. MoonJet (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Undo NAC/Relist Sure, three "redirect it again" in a row are a hurdle to overcome, but no, this was not an appropriate SNOW. TenPoundHammer, you have an exceptional track record among deletionists as being against most pop culture articles, both in length and consistency. You absolutely should not have been the one to close this as a NAC. What needs to happen is it be relisted, be delsorted appropriately, and allowed to run for the week to see if anyone comes up with SIGCOV to justify a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems edging way too close to WP:NPA. Comment on the close, not the closer. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind if I double down, do you? And yes, "don't mind?" is a polite fiction: you've earned what's coming, and if you don't want to read it, you aren't required to. Your involvement in this NAC is at least half of what is wrong with the close, and presumably WP:ADMINACCT applies to non-admins who choose to NAC, even if it doesn't explicitly say so. You don't get to NAC articles as delete, or anything like it, outside of undisputable circumstances, just like I don't get to NAC articles as keep, or anything like it, again outside of undisputable circumstances, because every editor has the right to an impartial closer, and in deletion discussions neither one of us are. We've edited in the deletion arena together for what, fifteenish years? You know what I prefer, I know what you prefer, we don't see eye to eye on how to best improve Wikipedia, but we get along fine when we each honor the process and stay in our lanes. I cannot see how this action fits that mold. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn but don't relist. The AfD nominator is no longer seeking deletion, so the AfD should be closed as withdrawn. Whether to merge-and-redirect is an editorial decision for the article talkpage and doesn't require an AfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.