No action (and close). Whoever is pretty sure that the subject is now notable can recreate the article. Whoever is not sure can pursue AfC (see Draft:Brooke Monk). There is no need to comment on the permissibility of recreation, the close wasn't challenged so there is no need to endorse, and a refund was not requested so there's no need to comment on undeleting, but being able to see what the page looked like via the Wayback Machine, I am noting that the deleted content was bad, and there are no sources worth extracting.—Alalch E.16:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first two of these survived RfD and then were deleted out of process by an admin with a long recent history of deletions being overturned at DRV. The third was never previously discussed but the fact that the first two survived means its not uncontroversial. These deletions need to be undone. * Pppery *it has begun...15:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"an admin with a long recent history of deletions being overturned at DRV". How long? And is it relevant to this particular deletion? What exactly are you trying to say? Deb (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn out-of-process deletions. All three deletion are out-of-process deletions (G6 is inscribed in the log, but G6 doesn't have anything to do with these deletions), but the first two are especially actively contrary to process as they were subjects of very nice RfDs that thoughtfully dealt with those two redirects.—Alalch E.15:51, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, to save anyone else having to go delving to work out what this is about:
April 4, 1968 is American for 4 April 1968, on which date Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated. The RfD is here.
September 26, 1963 is American for 26 September 1963, on which date not much of any great import happened. The RfD is here.
June 7, 2000 is American for 7th June 2000, on which date not much of any great import happened. There's no RfD to review.
The criteria for G6 are here in case anyone wants to review them. Deletion review interprets the criteria for speedy deletion narrowly and restores if there's doubt.
Overturn and a question that I should probably know the answer to: Do we notate MfD results anywhere in a redirect's talk page? I can't imagine Deb would actively have controverted two recent, reasonably well attended MfD discussions on purpose. Jclemens (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFD, not MFD, and yes but not consistently. The 1963 redir was so noted, the 1968 wasn't. Not that that makes the 1968 deletion any less careless: the RFD was clearly visible in the history - there were only eight revisions - and the speedy tag ("Another one of many useless redirects (now largely deleted) created by a now-indeffed user from an implausible typo") was so inapplicable that I'd not just have declined, not just have marked the declination as "refuse" as I occasionally do to indicate that I'll bring it here if another admin goes ahead and deletes it anyway, I'd have rolled it back for being indistinguishable from vandalism. —Cryptic08:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn. G6 speedy deletions have to be uncontroversial, and the fact they are listed here makes it clear that they are not. Stifle (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I notified the editor who tagged these redirects for speedy deletion that this discussion was occurring. Although the discussion is focused on the deletion of these pages, I think there is useful information for them to read over. LizRead!Talk!04:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I nominated these redirects for deletion as two out of them, if I recall well, were created (and the third one edited) by a user sanctioned for creating oodles useless redirects (GabrielPenn4223 – see User talk). I admit I didn't check the nomination history, however I did check neighbouring dates and they did not exist, so speedy'ing these articles seemed a no-brainer. I still believe they are useless and they needlessly clutter the search box, and will be eventually deleted, but since Wikipedia is increasingly turning into a bureaucracy, I understand why some editors feel compelled to use their infinite free time and follow the recommended procedures to the dot. Note that I did not nominate the articles under G6 but under a custom rationale providing a detailed explanation; no idea why G6 was relied on, however those who have argued for an overturn based on the narrow scope of G6 might like to revisit the matter. — kashmīrīTALK11:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your custom rationale for speedy deletion "Another one of many useless redirects (now largely deleted) created by a now-indeffed user from an implausible typo. Note that we don't keep redirects for all possible dates in all possible notations, and it wasn't said why we should make an exception for 26 September 1963, 4 April 1968 and 7 July 2000". does not relate to any valid speedy deletion criterion either. It's closest to R3, but that applies only to recently created redirects - these were created over three years prior to your nomination. Speedy deletion criteria only apply when all revisions of a page are eligible for that criteria, so you should check the page history and talk page before nominating (and the reviewing administrator must check before deletion).
Remember also that the speedy deletion criteria, interpreted narrowly, are the only situations in which an administrator is authorised to delete a page without discussion, if a page you think should be deleted doesn't meet one or more criteria then prod (if applicable) or XfD are your only options. In this case your nomination was also factually inaccurate for the first two as the RfDs did say why exceptions should be made for those dates. Thryduulf (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see the point being raised by those wishing to discuss these three redirects in detail. Please feel free to restore them, then renominate for deletion in due procedure. They will likely end up deleted anyway, as they are useless, just it will take several hours combined of people typing on Wikipedia, rather with little productivity. I get it that that's how bureaucracy looks like, and you'll have to excuse me I'm passing on that. — kashmīrīTALK14:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus of the previous discussion was that they were not useless, which is why we do not let individual editors/admins speedy delete pages except in the most obvious cases. If not deleting pages that consensus says should not be deleted sounds like bureaucracy to you, then please consider finding something else to do on Wikipedia than interacting with deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
April 4, 1968 was not created by that user, and Facts707 would no doubt be surprised to find that they're "now-indeffed" and that the redirects they've created are "now largely deleted". It should - but apparently doesn't - go without saying that it wasn't "created... from an implausible typo" either, since it's not a typo at all. About the only words in your deletion rationale that I can pick out as accurate are "Another one of many... redirects". —Cryptic04:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair we don't keep redirects for all possible dates in all possible notations is accurate too, however as we don't delete all of them either it's not relevant to whether these redirects should be deleted (speedily or otherwise). Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
