Unfortunately the admin went with a bad move. And the other people on the AfD said to redirect a page which is about a football club nothing on what George Andrews Reserve is, it clearly states it has Basketball Court, Pavilion, Picnic Area, Playground, Public toilet, Soccer Fields and Tennis Courts per official source, then why the hell would you redirect to a football club which uses the same location. This is not how we should be doing things for a geo location. And I strongly suggest this be reviewed. And if you're going with a redirect, because it is a geo location it should be directed too Dandenong, Victoria for the part of the city it is in. Geo locations should always be directed to other geo locations when GNG doesn't qualify and not football clubs. Govvy (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse three redirect votes (including the nom) citing lack of WP:SIGCOV and failure of WP:GNG and WP:SNGs against a single keep vote that was was refuted generally is consensus to not keep. I would be open to relisting due to the low attendance in the AFD, but I don't see any difference in the result based on the state of the article prior to being redirected. FrankAnchor 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Frank Anchor: You posted that so quickly, I didn't get my updated bit in the DR, I strongly suggest you actually look into what you're posting too, considering how quickly you posted, I know you didn't do any research into this. And that really pains me to see. Govvy (talk) 19:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually did do research. Due to the fact that the AFD only had four participants and had almost unanimous consensus to not keep, I did not have much to actually look into what [I'm] posting too [sic]. I did notice you suggested Dandenong, Victoria would be a better redirect target after my vote. I will offer no opinion on where the redirect should go. A retargeting discussion can take place at WP:RFD after this DRV is closed. FrankAnchor 19:44, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to keep geo location articles like this, but if not, I prefer a sensible location as a redirect. And that is my main reason, I've never heard of WP:RFD before in all my years on wiki from memory! Govvy (talk) 19:51, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the closure of the AFD, including the redirection to Dandenong Thunder SC, which was supported by consensus. When the appellant said it clearly states it has Basketball Court, Pavilion, Picnic Area, Playground, Public toilet, Soccer Fields and Tennis Courts, I thought maybe that was in the article that was cut down. That is only in the web page, and the appellant didn't even ask the editors or the closer to read the web site, so quoting that information is silly. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation of Draft - The appellant is welcome to develop a draft with more than three sentences and more than zero properly formatted references. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the appellant thinks that the redirection is wrong, then, as previously noted, they may go to Redirects for Discussion, but the closer followed consensus, which was what she should have done. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - although can see that the target is likely wrong. Seems like this is the wrong venue to discuss redirect targets. JMWt (talk) 07:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC) edit - in an attempt to be helpful I've opened a discussion at RfD and have tagged Govvy. JMWt (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is no possibility of a delete outcome, and discussion on varying between the different types of not-delete closure, such as whether or where to redirect, can be taken up on the article talk page or RFD. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as this is clearly the correct closure and a trout for Govvy for not discussing with Liz before starting this DRV. - UtherSRG(talk) 14:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - consensus was clear. GiantSnowman 11:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked on a map, it does not look that noteworthy. However I think it should have been relisted, as I somewhat agree that declaring consensus was premature, even if the eventual outcome is the same. - Indefensible (talk) 18:06, 1 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.
