23 November 2022

Thomas Lister, 2nd Baron Ribblesdale

Thomas Lister, 2nd Baron Ribblesdale (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Redirect was deleted out-of-process despite not meeting any of Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, restore the redirect, no reason why this can't be a redirect to Baron Ribblesdale where it is mentioned. Deleting circular redirects doesn't seem to match any policy, and doesn't help our readers one bit. Fram (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This deletion was made under "Other reason", which is not CSD. I cited as reason the creation of a self-link. Such self-links have in the past been created quite often on such pages listing noble titles. They are clearly in tension with having a redlink for the person with the title, which in my view comes under WP:REDLINK as a redlink that should exist. I was working on Charles Lister, related to the baronial family, and came across this redirect. It seems to me legitimate to cite that editing guideline as "other reason". If @Opera hat: who created the redirect feels strongly that the redirect should exist, I'll concede the point: there are cases where creating the article isn't so obviously a good idea. But having the redlink there is mostly a good idea for well-known reasons. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That guideline is about having a redlink vs. not having a link at all. It is not about removing redirects, otherwise one could delete all 80,000 redirects with possibilities and replace them with a redlink in the target article. Fram (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of this is an argument that could have been made at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. (WP:R#D10). It probably wouldn't have convinced me, but it might have convinced some other regulars of that venue. What's not acceptable is deciding that you know better than them and deleting it yourself without going through proper protocol, and the fact that you don't realize this is concerning. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, you gave me a short reply on my user talk, and escalated the discussion here within 60 seconds of that. WP:CSD speaks about "broad consensus" cases, not "only" cases, which below seems a stretch. WP:PROCESS is just an essay, but says "processes are deferential to policies and overlap with guidelines". I don't discount Wikipedia:Process is important, also just an essay. But I think you could have had a discussion where you started it. I'm a fundamentalist content guy, and if the consensus is that these redirects do no harm, I would argue against that in some cases. For examples barons are different from baronets, who do not have the same automatic notability. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The notability of barons, baronets, ... is not a reason for speedy deletion. I still have no idea why you think this would warrant not only deletion, but "speedy" deletion, which should be reserved for things which have no chance at all to survive a discussion, not for things you don't like for unclear reasons. It's one thing if you had just misinterpreted some speedy reason or thought this was an IAR situation because the redirect was somehow obviously harmful or ridiculous; but all you seem to be arguing is that your personal preference is sufficient to speedy delete something. I hope this is a one-off and not something you regularly do, as it really is conduct unbecoming of an admin. Fram (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • On a couple of points. I used to do this. I haven't done it for a while, and would be quite happy to see the matter clarified. I explain my reasoning because I'm here. In dispute resolution, the first step is to get the views from both sides. My reasoning is that where the redlink clearly should exist, under the guideline, then the redirect clearly should be deleted. Others may disagree. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Fram: With reference to your remark about circular redirects above, I asked a friend for an analytics query to count them. So https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/69227 runs in about 20 minutes, and gave an answer 317453. On the basis of that figure, there is an issue with 4.8% of articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are many articles which reference themselves directly, or through a redirect without possibilities: in those cases, the link needs to be removed from the article as being completely pointless. In the speedy case here though, you have on one hand the redirect which serves as a way for readers (and other articles) to search for the person, and find some info on them in the larger article: and on the other hand when an article is created instead of the redirect, the larger article will immediately point to it. What it doesn't do is invite the readers clearly to create the article as it is already a bluelink. It is sadly not possible, I think, to fulfill both services at once. Perhaps some mechanism could be created to have "redirects with possibilities" show up as redlinks in the target article, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. But deciding that the need of the target article (having a redlink) so far surpasses the benefits for readers and so on of having the redirect as being not just a deletion reason, but a actual speedy deletion one, is not something one admin can or should do. Restore the redirect and start a RfD if you want to delete it anyway (or a policy discussion if you want it to become standard procedure). Letting this DRV drag on serves no purpose though. Fram (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn the speedy deletion criteria are supposed to be the only cases where an admin can delete a page purely on their own discretion without going through some kind of process, aside from exceptional circumstances. That is essentially the first thing WP:CSD says. This rationale doesn't fall under any of the criteria so it should go to WP:RFD instead. (I assumed "self redirect" meant a redirect from a page to itself, which would have a reasonable G6, but it wasn't one of these.) Hut 8.5 18:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Deleted out of process. This redirect does not meet the speedy deletion criteria. ✗plicit 00:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy and send to RFD. This does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Frank Anchor 03:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Ross (screenwriter)

Kenneth Ross (screenwriter) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While a redirect may have had a marginal lead in determining consensus by numbers, a keep argument based in two WP:SNGs was made after these comments. Very little time was given to consider the keep argument before it was closed (indeed no editors commented after this argument was made), and this should have been re-listed to allow other editors time to consider the keep argument Further, if I had known that this argument was going to be completely ignored before the AFD was closed, I would have made a stronger case against redirection. I honestly think our policies are pretty clear here, and it would require ignoring the policy language at both WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE to have any outcome other than keep at this AFD.4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC) 4meter4 (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Insofar as why the AfD was closed the way it was, I believe that the outcome is the correct one. What was challenged was not the nomination of the awards, but rather whether there was sufficient reference material available to sustain an article. I believe that the arguments showed that several editors made good faith efforts to locate such material, and each one came up empty. Given that, I believe there was a clear consensus that this topic was not a suitable one for a standalone article. The AfD had run for sixteen days and had come to a consensus, so I do not believe that further relisting would have been a good use of the community's time, nor that it was in any way necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with 4meter4's argument and would now vote keep. I notice a number of edits have been added since the article was originally nominated and that he wrote Tømmerflåden which has the English title The Raft and according to the Stage was written in 1964: "Mr. Ross is twenty-four. His first play "The Raft" was produced at the Hampstead Civic Theatre in June of last year. Since then he has written a one-act play, "The Messenger", a play for television,"The Roundelay", which has been bought by ATV, and "Mr. Kilt". Details of other plays can be seen at https://www.doollee.com/PlaywrightsR/ross-kenneth.php Piecesofuk (talk) 09:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade That seems a very narrow and limiting take on notability policy. Essentially you are saying SNGs don't apply if sourcing issues exist and good faith searches for sources were made. If we are going to use good faith sourcing searches as required by WP:BEFORE to measure notability in relation to WP:SIGCOV as the only measuring stick, than what purpose do WP:SNGs serve? Why have them? We could just use SIGCOV as the only measurement of notability and forget the rest under that logic. The whole point of SNGs is to lower the threshold of inclusion demanded by GNG in cases where sourcing is problematic. That said, I don't think editors were necessarily able to access sources in this case given the age of the films and the pre-internet era of his work as an author of plays for the stage. It's likely offline references or references behind paywalls exist. Further, it appears the author was active writing in languages other than English as well, so it is possible foreign language sources from the mid 20th century also exist. I think there's a good argument to be made here about problems of sources accessibility online, and why we should apply SNGs in this case. Best.4meter4 (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse as there are four delete/ATD votes (including the nom) compared to one keep vote, all with basis in policy. All but one of the delete/ATD votes cite a lack of WP:SIGCOV and WP:BLP, while the keep vote cites two WP:SNGs, which suggest notability is likely, but not guaranteed. That said, I would not oppose relisting to allow more time to analyze User:4meter4's keep vote though I think redirect was the correct close based on the arguments at the AFD. Frank Anchor 13:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• relist A reasonable keep !vote came in 24 hours before the closing. I think it would be useful to relist while perhaps pinging prior participants. Hobit (talk) 17:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. As was discussed at the AfD, the article says next to nothing about the subject and just-about meeting an SNG is not a guarantee of inclusion. In fact WP:BIO (of which WP:CREATIVE is part) says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included (emphasis in original). There was a clear consensus for redirect and no sources were presented in favour of keep. The history is intact in case more in-depth sources surface in the future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell you are making a policy argument here on notability, which isn’t why this is here. You would be free to make that argument if the AFD were relisted. The question/ objection here is procedural. When a new argument is made, it’s bad practice to close the AFD without giving the wider community time to respond and consider it. It is as simple as that. It’s not uncommon for articles to be relisted two or three times, so there’s no harm in allowing discussion to move forward.4meter4 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's a comment on the validity of the vote that is the reason we're having this discussion; my "argument", so far as it relates to whether the article should be kept or not, as opposed to the procedural aspect, is a copy and paste from the same guideline you're quoting. There's no bad practice in closing an AfD shortly after a comment. If consensus is clear and it's been open for >7 days, it can be closed. Had new sources been presented to demonstrate notability, I would agree that the close was premature but a keep vote whose rationale was contradicted by the very guideline it was citing wouldn't (or shouldn't) have affected the outcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is a mischaracterization of what actually happened. There was not enough time for the new argument to be read by earlier commenters as it was closed within 24 hours after I made the post and with zero comments. We already have one AFD participant in this discussion above who retracted their delete/redirect vote after seeing my comments here and in the AFD discussion. This shows a progression away from consensus, and demonstrates that the new argument has some merit and deserves time for community comment. Cutting a conversation in progress short isn't helpful to the community and is frankly not congruent with our overall philosophy at Wikipedia:Consensus; particularly as articulated at WP:CCC. Further, additional sourcing is not required to make a successful keep argument under policy at WP:ANYBIO and WP:CREATIVE and saying it does is just not true. That's an issue that needs to be worked out in the AFD itself and not here at deletion review.The cogent issue here is about AFD process per criteria 5 of WP:DRVPURPOSE and as that criteria relates to WP:CONSENSUS; not about sources and notability policies which are issues pertinent to the AFD discussion itself but not the objections being raised here. 4meter4 (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's off-topic for DRV but you are selectively quoting the guideline, which in full is Wikipedia:Notability (people). As quoted above, the criteria are for people who are likely to be notable; meeting one or more of the criteria does not guarantee inclusion. Boiled down to its simplest form, this a discussion about a discussion about an article that says "this person is a screenwriter; he was nominated for several awards for one of his films". There was a consensus that that was insufficient to sustain a standalone article and nobody suggested that there was more information available. The closing admin correctly evaluated and enacted the consensus and best of all nothing was lost so it can be restored with minimal effort if or when more information becomes available. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't a clear consensus anymore with one of the few participants in the AFD changing their opinion as indicated above. The division of opinion here by multiple commenters is a pretty good indication that their isn't a clear consensus. That alone should indicate the need for a re-list.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• weak endorse as a correct interpretation of the discussion. The additional criteria at WP:BIO don't guarantee notability, however that so little can be found about the screenwriter of The Day of the Jackal is surprising. Creation should be allowed if sources can be found. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As he passes WP:ANYBIO: "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times". Another source which includes his date and place of birth is the International television & video almanac which lists a number of his plays from the 1960s and his screenplay awards/nominations Piecesofuk (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]