. Consensus seems pretty clearly in favor of deletion. Most of the discussion was around meta-procedural issues, specifically the practice of WP:BLAR. Yes, it should have probably gone to AfD back in 2009. It's a little late for that now, and no one has even attempted to justify the content of the article, only procedural arguments. Anyways, if someone actually feels super duper strongly about actually keeping the content let me know and we can go through AfD instead. Legoktm (talk) 00:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
not present in the target cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Revert without prejudice to AfD or merge per WP:BLAR. The only discussion I've found is from 2006 where one editor suggested a merge and a second editor disagreed. That's very obviously not consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per my comments at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 August 13#List of Strogg in Quake 4. -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The article was redirected in 2007 and then again in 2009. If the subject is not mentioned anywhere, then this thing should be deleted, considering the existence of an article about the subject of this redirect is a clear WP:NOTGUIDE violation. Steel1943 (talk) 18:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- :One person redirected it both times, without discussion. The only discussion (if you can call exactly two comments a discussion) that has been had (as far as I've found) came to no consensus. That's not close to consensus to delete - especially as the suggested action was merging not deletion. Lists of elements from notable works are frequently notable and don't violate NOTGUIDE. Whether this list is notable is a question for AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 02:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- ::Back then, Wikipedia was flooded with WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTFANDOM violations related to video games. Since then, Wikipedia has evolved to not include or encourage the creation of articles that are against such policies. Restoring this article for any reason would be regression. Steel1943 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- ::on top of what steel said, i haven't found anything specifying that this has to be done in afd, as opposed to here. buuuut chances are i haven't looked hard enough, so eh. the point still stands that doing this would only result in something being discussed and found worthy of deletion twice in a row, and go against previously established consensus that those kinds of redirects are usually deleted right away cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- :::By definition, any redirect (which this is) can be deleted at RfD. Thryduulf's understanding is incorrect. -- Tavix (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- ::::That would allow anybody to delete an article by unilaterally redirecting it to a random target and then nominating it here, which is why disputed BLARs are reverted and sent to AfD for discussion. This is a disputed BLAR. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- :::::...and every time someone unilaterally redirects something to a random target and subsequently nominates it here, they get reverted. That's not the case here, this page has long been stable as a redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- ::::::There is no recency requirement for any of this. We don't speedy delete article content just because it's old, if someone thinks it should be deleted it gets discussed at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- :::::::For pages that are redirects, if someone thinks it should be deleted it gets discussed at RfD. If you want this to be discussed at AfD, you should make a compelling argument that the content may be notable. -- Tavix (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- :::::::again, where did the "speedy" part come from? if i wanted speedy deletion because i thought it applied to one or more of the criteria, i would have tagged it as such, as opposed to taking it to rfd cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 15:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- ::::::::The only justifications for deleting article content at a venue other than AfD are if it meets a speedy deletion criterion or if it has previously been discussed with a consensus that it shouldn't be an article. Deleting at RfD is equivalent to reversing the redirect and then speedy deleting the article - which would obviously be out of process. Doing it in single step is just as out of process. Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- :::::::::i hate to disagree with an admin, but from reading wp:rdel and wp:del, i don't believe that's how any of this works. if a redirect refers to something that isn't mentioned in the target, and it's found that there's no reliable coverage of it, i think it falls within reason 2 to delete as stated in rdel, as it would leave readers to wonder where the list of strogg or info on quackifier are. if every blar'd redirect had to be reverted to an undercooked, effectively unsourced article and taken to afd to be discussed for the same reason as if it were still a redirect, a lot of rfd nominations would have been done out of process for ages now, with no admins happening to pick up on it
- :::::::::and also rfd isn't solely for speedy deletion i guess cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 21:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- ::::::::::Those are reasons to delete a redirect, yes, but they aren't reasons to delete articles. Every undiscussed BLAR that doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria should be reverted to the article (and optionally taken to AfD) if there is no appropriate target for the redirect (including the current target) and no consensus for new content (e.g. a dab page) at the title. That not every such redirect is spotted is not a reason to harm the encyclopaedia (which every out of process deletion does) when it is spotted. Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- :::::::::::i really must be missing something, because i haven't found the policy that states that undiscussed blars should be reverted and taken to afd, even despite pre-existing consensus that they'd get deleted for not being notable at all. do you happen to know where it is? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:20, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- ::::::::::::{{Ping|Cogsan}} WP:NOTBURO may be relevant here. Steel1943 (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- :::::::::::::all things considered, i think notburo would only serve as more of a reason to ignore any potential policy about restoring undiscussed blars to delete them anyway, and just... delete them. this must be unreadable on mobile devices by now cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 00:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- ::::::::::::::{{Ping|Cogsan}} That's one way of interpreting what I was trying to get at! In addition, regarding questioning administrators who participate in discussions: When administrators participate in discussions, they do so in their capacity as editors; their comments hold no stronger weight than any regular editor. They also cannot abuse their tools in retaliation since they would lose their administrative privileges. (I know there's a policy or essay page out there stating this, but I cannot find it at the moment.) In other words, feel free to challenge any editor in any discussion if you do not agree with their stance. Steel1943 (talk) 15:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Restore or Delete right away?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay 💬 22:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
::while we're here, what about quackifier? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 11:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as not seen in the parent article and WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, game-guide content cannot be restored, violating what Wikipedia is not. Unmentioned on Wikipedia (correctly so, I'd add). Utopes (talk / cont) 15:17, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- :WP:NOT is explicitly not a speedy deletion criterion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- ::Good thing this isn't WP:CSD! -- Tavix (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
- ::why do you keep using "this isn't a criterion for speedy deletion" here of all places? rfd isn't exclusively for speedy deletions, and you're the only person in this discussion who brought up speedy deletion in any context besides telling you that this venue isn't necessarily for or about speedy deletion, and neither is this discussion (seeing as it's gone on for over a month and all) cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 19:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: WP:INVOLVED relist to prevent WP:PEIS issues due to old log day still being present as a transclusion on Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Reminder that per WP:RELIST, this discussion can be closed at any time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
- {{s|Restore article per Thryduulf.}} RfD is not the appropriate venue to discuss the deletion of an article. A7V2 (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2024 (UTC) (struck, see below A7V2 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC))
::But we're not discussing the deletion of an article, we're discussing the deletion of a redirect. RfD is absolutely the correct venue for this discussion. Do you have any evidence that the former article content may be notable? -- Tavix (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You're welcome to disagree, but I don't agree that BLARing should be allowed to be used as a backdoor to deletion of articles. This case is even more problematic as there is evidence that some users disagreed with the BLARing (reverting it twice) but no deletion discussion took place. A7V2 (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::it had no sources, one of the reversions was per otherthings, the other had no reason given, and it was pure fancruft written in an almost entirely in-universe style. it had no place here then, and it has no place here now. thryduulf was the first person to present any form of actual argument about it, and even then, their arguments relied on rules that don't exist and/or contradict the ones that do cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 16:02, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::In what way do arguments that article content should be discussed at AfD before deletion contradict any rules? There are exactly two scenarios where it is acceptable to delete article content at RfD: Where previous discussion about the content has resulted in a consensus to delete and where the content would meet a speedy deletion criterion if restored. Neither apply here. Indeed what has happened here is equivalent to PROD being contested twice previously and then contested by multiple people here at RfD. No reason is required to contest a prod, yet here we have multiple and people are still arguing that AfD isn't required because they personally would vote delete there. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::you
::::::* cited wp:blar as a reason to restore despite that section being completely unrelated to deletion or merging discussions
::::::* seemingly mistook rfd for a speedy deletion venue four times in this discussion (still no idea what that's about)
::::::* handwaved to the existence of a "process" that, in restoring content contrary to how wikipedia works, would contradict long-standing precedent of deleting those blar'd lists (see the discussion for the list of strogg in quake 4 for a recent-ish example) and the guidelines detailed in wp:rfd (in this case, the main one is #2, as the list is still not present) and wp:notgameguide (as without notability or a single source, this list's presence would be unwarranted), but never detailed what the process actually is
::::::* seemingly came up with a new guideline that states that blars' content absolutely needs to be taken to afd, seemingly ignoring the flimsy or nonexistent reasoning for the reversions here, and the aforementioned arguments against the content having already been made
::::::* handwaved to this somehow violating wp:prod (or being equivalent to it? what does that even mean?), despite the fact that reverting edits that were considered unambiguously unconstructive even over 10 years ago is not considered very controversial, dealing with a redirect (unless this would count as an article the first time), the only argument against merging being "i worked hard on this", and it not even being a prod
::::::and yes, if the "process" somehow dictates that this should be taken to afd, my vote there would still be to delete as an unambiguous violation of wp:notgameguide
::::::every policy i could find states that this should be a pretty clear-cut case of "delete and call it a day". if you know what the policies that state otherwise are, please let me know. and maybe tavix too i guess cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 21:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Well, I can specify why WP:CSD isn't relevant here: the first sentence states (my emphasis added) that CSD is {{tq|the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media}}. RfD is a deletion discussion venue, so a criterion for speedy deletion is not necessary for deletion. I can also specify the purpose of WP:RFD per its first sentence: {{tq|Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where potentially problematic redirects are discussed.}} This is a potentially problematic redirect, so this is, by definition, where it should be discussed. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::I don't understand why you (Cogsan) keep thinking I'm calling RFD a speedy deletion venue? I'm very explicitly not doing that. What I am saying is that: If BLARed content were restored, and that content would meet a speedy deletion criterion (e.g. it was a copyright violation or patent nonsense), then its OK to delete the former article content at RfD.
:::::::When content is BLARed, and there are objections to that BLAR, then it is explicitly noted at WP:BLAR that the correct venue for discussion is AfD. There have been at least four independent objections to the BLAR here.
:::::::That there isn't content at the target of the redirect is not really relevant because nobody is arguing to keep the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::What is explicitly noted at WP:BLAR is that {{tq|other methods of dispute resolution should be used}}. AfD is then listed as one of the options, evidenced by the {{tq|such as}} clause that follows. RfD is a dispute resolution venue, thus there is no issue with adjudicating BLAR issues here. -- Tavix (talk) 23:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::i disagree with the first point. from a thorough read, you made no effort to make your arguments related to speedy deletion seem like anything besides randomly bringing it up as if you thought that rfd was solely for speedy deletion (or worse, that afd was the only venue for non-speedy deletion) until this exact comment, which i still disagree with per wp:xfd. as tavix noted, every single policy anyone here could find either actively supports blars being taken to rfd as if they were redirects, or just suggests finding a venue for it (with afd provided as an example)
::::::::and for the however manieth time, this whole discussion also actively ignores precedent that wikipedia doesn't house gamefaqs or fandom-style lists of things, unless they're notable (like pokémon), that those kinds of redirects just get deleted here regardless of blar status, and that no one seems interested in changing consensus in this area
::::::::so to make things short, i believe every single one of your arguments here either heavily misunderstands how rfd works, or seems to be inventing some policy that has coincidentally never been followed yet, even by admins like [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=Tavix&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist tavix], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=Hey_man_im_josh&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist hey man im josh], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=Explicit&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist explicit], and... i was going to say [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=delete&user=Thryduulf&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist you], but you mostly seem to deal with g6 and g7 speedy deletion, so give or take
::::::::is this part also unreadable on mobile yet? cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 12:44, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::::{{re|A7V2}} Where's the backdoor? It looks like the front door is wide open during this discussion. As for {{tq|no deletion discussion took place}}, there is one ongoing right now! I agree that disputed BLAR's should be restored should a case for notability be made, but so far no one has made a non-jurisdictional case for restoration. -- Tavix (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::@Tavix RfD and AfD attract different users looking at different things. Users who normally participate in deletion discussions but not at RfD would not necessarily know that this discussion is taking place. Has any WP:BEFORE been performed for this former article, or others like it at RfD? Also, there is no requirement that notability be established for someone to oppose a BLAR. That's why there is the suggestion that it be discussed at AfD. A7V2 (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::{{re|A7V2}} Do the five editors who have reviewed the article content and agreed that it was a violation of WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE mean nothing to you? What more would you want from an AfD discussion? RfDs are advertised in the article alert section of the relevant WikiProject(s), in this case WP:VG. One could alert the project with a talk page message if you are looking for something in particular? You could also WP:DELSORT the discussion. To demonstrate, I have added this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games#Redirects. Have you performed a WP:BEFORE? If so, what did you find? Yes, because you are advocating for restoration the WP:BURDEN is on you to demonstrate that the content is verifiable {{tq|to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution}}. -- Tavix (talk) 00:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@Tavix we can go around in circles for as long as you'd like to. As I said before you are free to agree or disagree that this is the appropriate venue to discuss the deletion of article content. Why would I perform a WP:BEFORE when I am interested in discussing the former article but the redirect? I'm not going to respond to a strawman argument such as you've made with regard to WP:BURDEN except to say that if someone was to blank an unsourced article, it would be perfectly acceptable to restore that article and suggest that it be taken to AfD or PRODed, and I don't think that that is any different for a redirect. A final point I'll make is that often with these kinds of RfD nominations it is often more a matter of who notices them that affects the results rather than a clear and concrete policy, so I would be open to a wider discussion about this, but as it stands we have a clear ambiguity (after all we have very longstanding editors and administrators such as yourself and {{u|Thryduulf}} who disagree on this) and so all I can do is give my opinion, and whether that places me with consensus or against it for this case is up to the closer. A7V2 (talk) 01:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::{{re|A7V2}} When there is article content under the redirect, there is some determination that must be made about the content. For example, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 18#2005-Cracker Barrell, you were able to analyze the article content, do some research on the topic, and come to the conclusion that it can be safely deleted, citing that it's unreferenced. That looks like a WP:BEFORE-like analysis to me. What's different about this redirect? Do you see something that you think may be notable? If not, what's the point of taking it to AfD—so we can wait a week and have it deleted then? What I'm trying to do is protect AfD from being a dumping ground of RfD's trash and prevent RfD from having a reputation that we are unable to handle this. This discussion is actually good evidence of RfD being able to handle it when you strip away the meta-arguments: five(!) editors have reviewed the content and determined that it fails WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE, which has been more attended than your average AfD. Finally, as for whether it would be acceptable to restore an unreferenced article, the policy answer is no—not unless you're adding citations. WP:BURDEN makes very clear (with my emphasis) that {{tq|any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.}} -- Tavix (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::I looked at the history and saw that the BLAR had previously been disputed. That in line with my usual standard of whether the article passes WP:SNOW was enough for me to feel that this shouldn't be deleted here. I will admit I did not read all of the above discussions as carefully as I perhaps should have, but when much of it is pointless badgering when it is very clear what Thryduulf means with regards to whether the former article satisfied any CSD, I am less inclined to read it carefully or pay it much attention. I disagree with your interpretation of policy with regards to unreferenced articles being blanked rather than taken to AfD or PRODed (of which there are still many lurking around not being blanked, I suppose someone could blank them all if they liked but to me that would seem disruptive) but note that in this case the BLARer did not express any concerns around verifiablilty, and much of the content can be trivially cited to the game's manual (eg [https://archive.org/details/Quake_II/page/n15/mode/2up], pages 29-32). A7V2 (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::i'll say that yes, i also disagree with this having been blar'd. i think it should have been taken to afd back then so that this discussion wouldn't have been happening now
::::::::::but i'll also disagree with using the manual as a source (trivially or not, as it likely wouldn't warrant a list on its own) before finding something secondary, since one could also make the exact same argument for chasm: the rift or earthbound cogsan (nag me) (stalk me) 13:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::*The manual of course can't be used to establish notability but could be used to satisfy verifiability (but what I was getting at was that this question about verifiability is just an excuse to get around the proper processes). Given what has been discussed above it does seem unlikely that this would be kept if taken to AfD so I'll withdraw my !vote but this was certainly handled poorly in the first place as you say. A7V2 (talk) 00:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
:Allow me to pile on with a delete per the nomination. I really am not concerned with the previous article content this many years after the fact, and the argument about venues above did nothing to change my mind. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review).
