15 January 2023

Rosebud Primary School

Rosebud Primary School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The consensus to me clearly was for delete not redirect. I don't believe there is consensus for redirect. I contacted the closing admin and she gave this as her reason LibStar (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, more editors asked for this article to be deleted than for a redirect. But I thought in my position as an AFD closer, I am allowed some leeway to consider alternatives to deletion, in this case turning the page from an article to a redirect, an idea that was suggested by one participant. This is a frequent ATD closure decision for school articles to be redirected to either the school district or to the town that they are located in. I don't think I went "rogue", that would be if I had closed the discussion as "Keep" which would have clearly been going against the consensus of the participants. If the opinion of editors at this deletion review is that this closure should be overturned, then may I ask for the article to be deleted and then a redirect created on this page title as I think it is a valid search term for readers looking for more information on this subject. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Endorse. This might be a controversial vote, but I'd weakly endorse this outcome. In the discussion, there's a clear consensus that the subject is non-notable. The proposed outcomes by the voters delete, redirect, and merge. However, one of the delete AfD participants explicitly contradicted merging through the line I couldn't find sufficient independent sources to show notability. I've added the year the school was established in the Rosebud article, but I'm against merging anything else as the majority of the article is unsourced. Therefore, merge is not the preferred outcome. Nevertheless, the redirect voter suggests that a redirect (WP:ATD) is valid as the subject is briefly mentioned in Rosebud, Victoria, which is not contradicted by other delete voters. If there has been an explanation by the delete voters about why the redirect per WP:ATD is unsuitable in the AfD, then an overturn to delete is necessary IMO. However, this is not the case; as such IMHO the redirect ATD close is also a reasonable conclusion by the closer. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, the delete !voters are clear in the view that the school is not sufficiently noteworthy for a standalone article but do not explicitly suggest that redirecting is unsuitable. By the same token, one could argue that for the most part, redirecting isn't offered as an alternative, although it's not unreasonable for the closer to move in this direction as a suitable WP:ATD. General procedure with school articles tends to favour a redirect to the area or region instead of outright deletion, except where a redirect is unsuitable or explicitly voted against. By redirecting, the article is no longer in its standalone state and as such I think is consistent with the consensus from the !voters. The other way to look at it is that the article could be deleted and a fresh redirect recreated by someone else, which would not fall foul of the afd and offer the same outcome as currently given. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  +1, as WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES states that Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally the case in North America) or the lowest level locality (elsewhere or where there is no governing body). VickKiang (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES redirects to its Schools subsection) is tagged with ((Supplement)), which describes it as an "explanatory essay". Its Citing this page in AfD section is a disclaimer with a dedicated ((Outcomes)) template. Flatscan (talk) 05:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the reply. I am aware and I believe that Bungle also understand that what has been cited is merely an essay, not a policy or guideline, and could be considered as an argument to avoid if it is the only argument in AfDs. (WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an effective summary of how deletion discussions on Wikipedia tend to be resolved, but using it as the only argument for keeping or deleting an article can lead to circular reasoning. Participants can refer to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES but are expected to further explain their reasoning in discussions.) Personally I don't think this is the case here, but I also am aware that if the overturn to delete votes like yours with a differing interpretation on WP:ATDs (also I agree that the overall guidance on ATDs probably requires additional clarification per Extraordinary Writ's comment) are found to be more persuasive policy-wise, my reasoning might be given less weight accordingly. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 05:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. There was a policy-based argument made in support of redirection (WP:ATD-R), while there was no policy-based argument (or any argument at all, for that matter) made against it. If someone would like to explain why a redirect is unsuitable here, I don't have a problem with relisting to consider that argument, but otherwise I think this is an appropriate determination of consensus. That said, policy needs to give clearer guidance on this issue so we don't keep having to relitigate it at DRV every six months. I don't think we've had an RfC on weighting ATD arguments since 2011: it's absolutely time for another one. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Measuring current practice would be important data. My perception from manual sampling is that the two closers in the linked DRVs have a pattern of merge or redirect closes that deviate from the apparent consensus. To be clear, I have occasionally seen closes by others that lean toward merge or redirect. ATD has come up more recently than those DRVs. A related hypothetical – based on a disputed interpretation – was proposed as WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Workshop#Alternatives to Deletion and rebutted (June–July 2022). WP:Deletion review/Log/2022 December 19#Daily Dozen Doughnut Company was endorsed as delete despite recommendations to overturn to merge that cited ATD. Flatscan (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse a "delete as non-notable" vote and a merge or redirect vote are essentially the same, with the only difference being that there is a suitable target identified in the latter case. The redirect voter cited WP:ATD as to why a redirect close was valid and none of the delete votes had specific arguments against a redirect. Frank Anchor 01:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Suonii180: argued against merge with their !vote [1]. LibStar (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They stated that: I've added the year the school was established in the Rosebud article but I'm against merging anything else as the majority of the article is unsourced, which isn't specific against a redirect but specific against merging information (which is what you said). I do agree that merge is not a desirable outcome here though. VickKiang (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Suonii180 made an argument against merging content and did NOT make an argument against redirect, which was the result of the AFD. Merge and redirect are two distinct outcomes. Frank Anchor 03:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  You say above " a merge or redirect vote are essentially the same". LibStar (talk) 04:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for catching this inadvertent error in the prose of my argument. It has been corrected. Frank Anchor 05:08, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse viable and common ATD. The school isn't notable, but a viable search in the context of the location. No reason not to redirect. Star Mississippi 02:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• The nom here cited WP:NSCHOOLS in the AfD which links to WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES which makes it clear the standard outcome here is to redirect. Now, if there were a good reason to not redirect and that was brought up at the AfD, that could be quite different. More broadly, if there is a place to redirect to, we generally should. endorse Hobit (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Redirect is usually a valid conclusion when there is a delete consensus and a clear redirect target. This is such a case. There is no need to delete when redirect will work as well, and no argument why redirection will not work. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete to reflect the consensus, but allow a redirect to be created, which would be similar to delete and redirect. Red-tailed hawk recommended merging, but that was rebutted by Suonii180, and thus the page history is not required. I am not aware of any widely-accepted policy basis for overruling a consensus to delete with redirect and keep history. I wrote WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing/Evidence#Alternatives to deletion are not preferred over deletion in July 2022, focusing on WP:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion (policy, shortcut WP:ATD). Flatscan (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have read your evidence submission (which the ArbCom does not appear to have adopted whatsoever), but frankly it seems to be a frank misreading of Wikipedia's notability policies and guidelines. The meaning of WP:DEL-CONTENT (If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page) is quite universal, with rare exceptions. It's the fundamental principle behind WP:NEXIST ([n]otability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article), and even WP:TNT gives it due deference (it applies to when the damage is beyond fixing) and advocates for a fairly narrow exception (if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history) but the title might be useful, then delete the content to help encourage a new article). I just don't see why we should give weight in a deletion review to an evidence submission that (1) so flatly misunderstands the fundamentals of the community consensus around deletion and (2) was not even cited by ArbCom in the relevant case. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. As I noted in the discussion itself, even if no content is merged, a redirect seems warranted on the basis that the topic is mentioned there. This is more than a reasonable WP:ATD, and no arguments against redirection were presented. The nominator explicitly notes that there was some pushback against merging content (Suonii180: argued against merge with their !vote), but that's plainly not an argument against the different outcome of deleting the content of the page and redirecting it to where it is mentioned. As consensus is not ascertained by counting votes, but rather by Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, redirection is the consensus outcome. If the nominator does not like the existence of the redirect following the discussion (something neither the nominator nor anyone else involved in the discussion expressed whatsoever), WP:RFD is that-a-way, but that isn't reason to overturn the closure here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. When the closing admin finds consensus to delete and believes that there is a suitable page to redirect to, they can do this. This outcome emanates from the consensus to delete. —Alalch E. 08:38, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse it's entirely reasonable to close as Redirect when there's a consensus that we shouldn't have an article about the subject, the title is a reasonable redirect and nobody has actually opposed redirection. I suppose we could delete the page and recreate it as a redirect but I can't see any reason to do so. The arguments for deletion were based on the subject being non-notable, not that the content was in any way harmful. Hut 8.5 08:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, I was against a merge as mentioned above but I don't have any arguments against a redirect as it was already mentioned in the target article. Suonii180 (talk) 13:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Fair reading of the discussion and an outcome justified by both the consensus and policy. Also, largely agree with Extraordinary Writ's analysis. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the above. Closers are allowed (some would even go as far as to say encouraged or even required) to consider alternatives to deletion - in this case an alternative to deletion was suggested that was in accordance with both policy and precedent and no arguments were made to the contrary either explicitly or implicitly so this was a good close. Thryduulf (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can this review be closed as consensus is very clear? Asking as nominator of this review. LibStar (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]