Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 June 28

28 June 2024

Disidrose

Disidrose (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted as an WP:R3, despite being too old to be eligible under that criterion. As an WP:RFOR from a language without a clear connection to its target of Dyshidrosis its retention at RFD is highly questionable. Nonetheless it was marked as reviewed by an experienced editor and the community has made its desire to weigh in on redirects more than a few months old at RFD clear. Deleting admin is largely inactive and archived the request for undeletion without comment, as such I am beinging this here. 2601:5CC:8300:A7F0:95CE:1437:1591:A9E6 (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

• Overturn. R3 specifically only applies to recently created redirects. This was deleted almost two years after creation. This can be sent to RFD if desired. Frank Anchor 12:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. While the R3 itself isn't particularly egregious, I found the admin's conduct after the fact to be inappropriate. WP:ADMINACCT is a policy, and it lists, among other things, failure to communicate as improper admin conduct. This admin not only ignored a valid question/petition by a user, but then went on to archive that question away from his Talk page. If you are unable or unwilling to respond to legitimate questions and requests, then hang up the mop and step away from admin actions until you are ready to be accountable for your actions. Owen× ☎ 13:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to RFD if someone feels it's necessary. This was not a valid speedy. Star Mississippi 13:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn - Definitely not recent as required by R3. -- Whpq (talk) 13:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• Overturn. Incorrect application of R3. No biggie. Should have replied to the IP though.—Alalch E. 22:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
• R3 is tediously out of date and should have been reformed years ago to split out foreign language redirects to their own criterion. The average lifecycle of those is: get created, get forgotten instantly, lurk around doing nothing for years on end, finally get slam-dunk deleted at RfD when somebody notices them. It's a colossal waste of everyone involved's time. WP:IAR is still a policy on this project, although most people seem to have forgotten that. Honestly, I do not care at all whether this redirect lives or dies. This is pure meaningless bureaucracy on the basis of a bad rule blindly applied.  — Scott • talk 22:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds like many of the elements of WP:NEWCSD are met. We've gone through and tweaked or eliminated several in the past year or so, no reason to not do another... my only concern is whether this situation is frequent enough to be worth documenting as a new/revised CSD. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  It didn't get much traction when last discussed at WT:CSD, this past March. —Cryptic 05:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

  It's really not a popular enough venue for discussion, going by the fact that only 6 people commented. RFOR itself originated from a centralized discussion in 2008 and the recent discussion deserved to be similarly publicized.

  I see the very obvious point of what the basic criterion for the need to retain a foreign-language redirect should be, that the target article demonstrates a connection to the foreign language, was completely missed. This is hardly a new idea - it just synthesizes this part of WP:R#DELETE #8 (added in 2011):

  If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects in a language other than English to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created.

  Going by the RFOR talk page, the last time I engaged on this topic was a decade ago. I may have enough energy now to give it a better try.  — Scott • talk 15:50, 29 June 2024 (UTC)