Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 March 22

Sergeant Hatred – Redirected and withdrawn. – lifebaka++ 00:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sergeant Hatred (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This is one of a list of articles of characters from this show, all of which so far seem to have resulted in redirects (1, 2, 3 to give a few examples). Those were the main characters; I'm not sure how this more minor character's AfD discussion should be interpreted differently. While it seems there was a mix of delete and redirect votes, it seems that there was a clear consensus that this should be redirected, since all the delete votes did not give good reasons for it not to be redirected, and (although I know it's not a majority vote) there was only one keep vote (even the rescue tag didn't really bring in keep !votes, but redirect ones.) Yaksar (let's chat) 20:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC) {{subst:drv2[reply] Endorse Assume good faith. The rescue tag isn't about bringing in keep votes. The keep vote found a valid news source giving adequate coverage to this character. The two creators of the show go into detail about the character during an interview. [1] There are plenty of other places that mention the character but its a lot to sort through. I was considering changing my vote from redirect to keep based on what was found. If reliable sources exist, then the article should be kept. And what happened with other articles, has no bearing to this article. Different situation here. Dream Focus 22:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Not sure where I could possibly have not assumed good faith here, but whatever.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, though my reasoning is not at all the same as Dream Focus'. Stifle's close doesn't preclude redirecting this article. What the close said was that there was no consensus to delete it—in other words, what Stifle found was that Sergeant Hatred shouldn't be a redlink. You're very welcome to redirect it, and I'm sure that if you'd discussed this with the closer before raising the DRV, that would have been your answer.—S Marshall T/C 00:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] The closer indicates that they prefer it to be taken to DRV rather than discuss it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] That's a very fair point and quite true. Would you be happy for me to redirect it now, and for this DRV then to be closed?—S Marshall T/C 00:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] I actually did try redirecting it, but it was undone, which I guess happened because there was technically no "consensus" for it. The problem with the closure is not that I wanted deletion, but I'm kinda trying to go by something a bit more common sensey (forgive me for what I've screwed up, this is my first DRV and I'm not totally familiar with the process). It's pretty impossible to tell someone that an article should be redirected and to achieve consensus for it outside of an AfD, so I was hoping this rather obvious solution could be reached through this method.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Hmm, I see that and it's not right. There was no consensus to delete the article but there was certainly a consensus that it shouldn't be kept in its current form. I've re-created the redirect. If I get reverted too, then I'll hope someone uninvolved will consider sterner measures.—S Marshall T/C 01:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Just redirect the damn thing, that's what the consensus was. Reyk _YO! 03:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Agreed, a redirect seems the right way to go here. I'd suggest engaging with the un-redirecting editor, seeking a Wp:3O, or starting an WP:RFC on the topic. DRV doesn't really handle the minutiae of editing once a gross keep v. delete decision has been made... Jclemens (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per above. JJ98 (Talk) 05:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to redirect While there was no consensus to delete this article (it was nearly 50:50 deletion vs. merging), there was overwhelming consensus to not have this as a separate article. Now WP has to deal with the silly "Oh, it's no consensus so default to keep as a separate article". I am sure this is not what Stifle intended. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse own closure, there was no consensus whatsoever to delete the article and variations on which particular brand of not-delete to apply to the article can and should be taken up through the talk page or WP:BOLDness. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I think it could have easily been closed as a "redirect" as well, but I think some admins don't like to impose that, considering it to be purely an editorial decision. So, leave this DRV be and if ppl are agreeing that it should remain a redirect, then that's the way to go. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Endorse, as said by by Dream Focus. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Close. Already redirected. No admin action required here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] Oh hey, yeah, I kinda forgot about this. I'm sure this can be closed, since a solution seems to have been reached.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I agree with sgeureka, there was an obvious consensus against a standalone article. I would lean toward endorsing if it were less clear. DRV tends to group non-delete outcomes together, but I think that is inconsistent with WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect, which concluded that merge and redirect are valid recommendations distinct from keep. After this AfD, the onus should be on Onthegogo to justify a separate article, not on Yaksar. Flatscan (talk) 05:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

22 March 2011