Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 December 16

Wikipedia:Content creation – Endorse, but allow recreation. There is clear consensus here that the XfD close was fine, given the existing discussion. It also sounds like most people's objections were not to the redirect per-se, but that there was no obvious single target (the WP:XY argument). It sounds to me like the {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} suggestion would probably satisfy most of the discussants here. There's also some feeling that it's OK to be a little less strict about things in project space than in mainspace. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I was unable to resolve this through discussion with the closing administrator. First of all, the venue is redirects for discussion, not redirects for deletion. The nominator was neutral on deletion, seeking a potential retarget. Two other contributors made comments, while another suggested retargeting. One contributor suggested deletion. The closer stated they found the deletion argument compelling, while I didn't. WP:XY would be more applicable if the redirect was, e.g., "Wikipedia:Content creation and deletion". Furthermore, it is guidance for the mainspace, project space shortcuts often point to one place when they could equally point to others (hatnotes are sometimes used extensively). I also disagree with the stance of the closer that there wasn't a reasonable chance for a better target to emerge from further discussion. I believe the discussion could have reasonably been closed as no consensus or relisted, but not as delete. Therefore, I suggest an overturn and relist.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note: I've been pondering this redirect since I noticed the discussion was closed and left an inquiry about it on the talk page of the closer. If the discussion is reopened, I have a target to suggest (i.e. Wikipedia:How to create a page) with a rationale for it.— Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 00:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse WP:XY does apply to this situation and is a rather compelling argument here. Admittedly all the examples given there are of the form "X and Y" and in article space, but the argument applies more generally to all redirects that could point to multiple targets, whatever the wording or namespace. The fact that lots of targets have been suggested with no particular agreement about any of them would support this. I would also point out that "content creation" doesn't have to mean starting new articles but can also refer to adding more content to existing articles, which means there could be lots of other potential targets. I don't see any particular reason why this must have been relisted and it had sufficient participation to be closed. Hut 8.5 07:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Very reasonable close, close to being unable to being closed any other way. A clearly inappropriate recent redirect, no one questioned that. A few weak ideas for retargetting, but no agreement, no enthusiasm. So delete. No history to be concerned about. Godsy appears to want a discussion for the sake of a discussion. If there were any good idea for what to do with this available project space title, any editor may boldly create it. I see no benefit though, Wikipedia has a lot of essays already. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse unless we want to investigate an alternative outcome which isn't "delete", "relist", or "no consensus". Ruslik0's closure was reasonable given the comments on the RfD. Steel1943 and Ivanvector kinda wanted retarget but didn't argue out the possibilities. CWM wanted delete. Godsy didn't support anything explicitly. Nobody wanted keep. I agree that we could've benefited from more discussion but given that nobody responded directly to any of the retargeting proposals, it is reasonable for Godsy to conclude that there's a consensus to not keep, and we don't have much interest in this discussion, thus we should default to delete. Deryck C. 13:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: If the discussion was relisted, what outcome would you want? Deryck C. 13:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Deryck Chan: I'm not invested in a particular outcome, rather I'd simply like it relisted, as I believe that action has a good chance of soliciting a stronger consensus in this case. The closer didn't share my view of the situation, so this was the only course of action I had left. This term (i.e. content creation) is commonly used to refer to the creation of new content meant for or within the mainspace. Though broad, it seems like a topic we would cover or define somewhere in the project space, and my hope was that in attempting to gain more input (i.e. relisting) someone might participate that knew of or had found an appropriate target. I commonly see that happen after something is relisted at RfD. I especially feel as I do in this case, because relisting something in the project namespace is essentially harmless, as the discussion notice doesn't affect the readership. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 14:41, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Godsy: I tend to agree with Ruslik0 on this one - there seems not to be enough interest in this discussion for it to be worth relisting. I see {{Wikipedia disambiguation}} as another possible solution but I don't know if we have enough interest... Endorse but allow speedy recreation of something else and/or renomination. Deryck C. 19:02, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually do not have any objection to its recreation provided that a reasonable target is agreed upon. Ruslik_Zero 20:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.