. Procedural concerns aside, editors remain divided between deletion and keep. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
During Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged, the nominator repeatedly rebutted comments by other users because none of the sources provided are simultaneously reliable and support the name of the talk show. I was likewise unable to confirm this title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- Close per WP:RENOM. The AFD was closed eight days ago. There's no sense in re-litigating this now. If you have an issue with the closure, please bring it to WP:DRV. - Eureka Lott 14:32, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
- I disagree this is a renomination, this is a fundamentally different question. The AfD asks whether or not there should be an article on the topic, the RfD asks whether or or not there should be a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but I have to disagree with you. There are only two potential outcomes here, should the discussion continue. Participants rehash the same issues already discussed (which is already happening), and:
::#The discussion reaches a different conclusion than the AFD, contradicting the !voters in the recent discussion and potentially opening up more avenues for controversy; or
::#It reaches the same conclusion, after expending unnecessary time and energy to end up exactly where we started. - Eureka Lott 01:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::I don't have any problem with the RfD finding a different result than the AfD. It seems in the AfD, participants got hung up on WP:ATD without realizing that a redirect is problematic, and/or assumed there would be material to merge and a redirect would then be cromulent. However, that did not occur and we are left with the unfortunate situation we now find ourselves in. Bringing the issue to RfD is a Good Thing because participants then get a chance to rectify the problem: either find sourcing for this to add a referenced mention of "Shep Unplugged" to the target or delete the redirect. I offered a "conditional delete" because, from what I read, I am optimistic that such a sourced mention can be added (which would be the "same conclusion" case you mentioned, but with the benefit of improving the target article which is never a waste of time or energy). Clamoring for a premature close to this discussion on shaky procedural grounds does not help bring this to a amicable conclusion. -- Tavix (talk) 14:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete, does not qualify as a WP:RENOM and doesn't need to be dragged to DRV. LaundryPizza03 and I were 100% unable to prove that "Shep Unplugged" even so much as exists. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:23, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged participants who have not commented already: {{user|Mrschimpf}}, {{user|Oaktree b}}, {{user|Star Mississippi}}, {{user|Kvng}}, {{user|Skynxnex}}, {{user|Sammi Brie}}, {{user|Starship.paint}}, and {{user|Dream Focus}}. Cunard (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- :Please don’t violate WP:CANVASS. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting ("They have a potentially useful page history", "They aid searches on certain terms", and "Someone finds them useful"). Here are three comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shep Unplugged that support retention of this redirect:
- From Skynxnex: "The evidence I've found is a New York Red Bulls fan blog post from April 2008 that mentions it, [https://redbullsreader.blogspot.com/2008/04/tuesdays-links-of-day.html](archive: [https://web.archive.org/web/20080513080635/https://redbullsreader.blogspot.com/2008/04/tuesdays-links-of-day.html]): {{tq|MSG.com's Video Library (Check out Shep Unplugged, a recap of the Revs match, and more)}}. Sadly, it appears that MSG Networks pretty completely have lost/scrubbed basically all content from before ~2018 but the original Wiki article seems earnest enough plus the non-Wiki sourced blog post makes it seem to have existed."
- From Sammi Brie: "There's definitely enough circumstantial evidence to prove that this thing existed, but at no time should it have ever been labeled as notable, and the fact it falls in the 2000s (the pre-social-media, few-live-websites-today "dark ages" for this type of search) does not do any favors. I submit a [https://talking-soccer.com/TS4/forum/soccer-by-region-state/region-1/massachusetts/2918- forum post from 2008]: {{tq|He has also been the lead analyst for the MetroStars and the re-branded New York Red Bulls of Major League Soccer for several years. During these broadcasts, Shep hosts a segment during halftime entitled Shep Unplugged. Shep is usually outspoken during this segment about league issues and global soccer news.}}"
- From Dream Focus: "I found him mentioned here http://voices.washingtonpost.com/soccerinsider/2007/07/conflict_of_interest.html with a comment statement about his "unplugged" segment. I believe it was a real thing. Not enough information for a standalone article so just redirect it."
Cunard (talk) 07:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- ::{{ping|Cunard}} “Someone finds it useful” only applies if sourced information is added and same for “it aids searches”, and arguably the first thing you said onlyapplies if sourced information is added at the target. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Close per Eureka Lott (WP:RENOM), and if not, Keep per Cunard. starship.paint (exalt) 09:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete same reasons as above. Oaktree b (talk) 11:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, @Cunard for the ping. I think the redirect should remain as sites confirmed that this segment existed. Thanks, Cunard, for aggregating those links that were presented in the AfD. The RBNY post is a blog, but the link is to the network's own site. I wasn't able to access a media site on the internet archive, but it's possible one of the other archive sites would have it. If offline sources are (and should be) OK, there's no reason to penalize a pre-social media show whose web format didn't archive well. The segment was by no means notable, which is why no one at the AfD was arguing for a keep, but it makes sense to help the reader learn more about Messing's career. This is not a BLP issue.
:@LaundryPizza03 {{tq| the nominator repeatedly rebutted comments by other users}} because nearly every !voter disagrees with him doesn't make him repeating himself and utterly bludgeoning the discussion have more weight. I'm not sure who you're so against a redirect existing @TenPoundHammer when we know Shep Messing had a broadcast career that included the MSG halftime show. It helps the reader and doesn't harm Wikipedia for this to exist. Star Mississippi 11:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
::So a blog pointing to a link that isn't in the Wayback Machine is considered sufficient evidence? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
:::The link is in the wayback machine. The media content is not. Star Mississippi 15:36, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
::::True, but if there is no content about this in the article, it should be deleted. None of the keep votes address this fact. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Nine people said to redirect it, two said to delete it, it was closed as redirect. Dream Focus 11:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Conditional delete unless content on this subject is added to the article. As of now, if I were to be seeking specific information on "Shep Unplugged" I would not be able to find it at the place I was redirected to, which is problematic. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete This would be better as a WP:DRV, but what Tavix is saying is (1) critical and (2) missed by the keep voters: if no place in the article mentions this, it is a misleading and unhelpful redirect. The only rationale for keeping is based on the previous AFD, but that doesn’t factor in WP:CCC, and the redirect policy of making sure there’s information at the redirect, therefore it shouldn’t have been redirected without information being added. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- :Found the policy - WP:R#DELETE bullet #8. This redirect can be readded if sourced information is added to the main article. 47.23.40.14 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Pinging {{u|Donaldd23}} from the AfD, which may well have been an honest omission by Cunard when he pinged the participants. I don't know if this was the basis for 47.23.40.14's CANVASS violation statement.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- {{ping|Jay}} Same IP as before. That was not the basis for canvassing, the fact he deliberately pinged editors who mainly sided with him is why I said it was canvassing. 12.119.134.66 (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
::12.119.134.66, I found only one omission, who I pinged in my relist. From the list of {{tqq|participants who have not commented already}}, which editor are you alleging he omitted? Jay (talk) 02:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
:::I’m not claiming an editor was omitted, I’m claiming it’s clearly partisan to deliberately ping 8 editors who agreed with him and only 2 who disagreed to try to tip the outcome, especially when they all go behind WP:RENOM, when it has been shown it does not apply. These editors in particularly have not seen WP:R#DELETE bullet point #8, the reason favoring deletion.70.183.136.26 (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
::::70.183.136.26, how is it canvassing if no editor was omitted? If someone else has got the point 47.23.40.14/12.119.134.66/70.183.136.26 is trying to convey, please pitch in. Courtesy ping the AfD closer {{u|Northamerica1000}}. Jay (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
:::::It’s still a biased ping, even if no one was omitted, if 80% of the pinged editors voted for Cunard’s outcome. It must be limited, non biased. 70.183.136.26 (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
::::::I don't see how "biased ping" is different from WP:CANVASS. I also didn't get {{tqq|It must be limited}}, but I'll try to stop this thread here. Jay (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per Cunard. The deletion seems like wikilawyering here. If material is needed in the main target, I do not see why that can't be done. We have processed AfD discussions with merging that was not done instantly. – The Grid (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per my original vote. I don't think there's anything harmful from keeping it. Redirecting to a page which shares part of the name makes clear that it's connected to them. Point 8 at WP:R#DELETE is just "unlikely to be useful" and I think the exceptions apply as equally as well. Skynxnex (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
- Same IP as the ones above. Do you really think that it’s that commonly typed to have a misleading redirect. Only around four people use it a day, or 94 people since the 18th of June. That isn’t that much use. As such, I doubt it’s really that useful, as it is probably getting excess attention due to the RFD. As such, I don’t think it’s that useful. There is also no content on it at the main article and honestly it’s so fringe that including it would violate WP:DUE. I would, after reading this article, oppose any information on this, which means a redirect is harmful. 75.99.68.66 (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
