weak overturn and list at RfD Hard call because that exact redirect target was discussed. But it isn't a G4 per se, and I think it's reasonable to ask for a new discussion on that target. That said, I don't know that we have words like that redirecting to Wikipedia space anywhere, so I think it will get deleted at RfD. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, this feels like bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, but I think sometimes bureaucracy needs to be followed. I deleted it without checking closely to see if it literally was a re-creation of an exact prior page that had been deleted. It didn't look like a useful page so I thought it deserved deletion. I have no objection if someone wants to restore it so it can be deleted by different process. S Philbrick(Talk) 23:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's where I'm at. Seems silly to list, but I'd prefer we do so. I (and most of the DRV regulars) tend to be of the opinion that following CSD literally is important (due to it often being by just one person). But this one is borderline even for me... Hobit (talk) 03:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn and list at RfD With Hobit on this one. It's been four years, I don't have anything wrong with the speedy but it is contested, and I don't see any harm in a new discussion. I'm not sure we're not just creating bureaucracy, but I think we should allow for a discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 09:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn and list at RFD, CSD not correctly applied as the content was different. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn and list at RfD, per everyone else. Mr. Heart(talk) 06:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
