Jclemens

I'm no longer an administrator, so if you're looking for someone to undelete something I deleted, you'd be better off asking at WP:REFUND

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• My RfA Standards

Recreation of Where is Kate?

Please don't recreate this redirect without consensus. If you feel the AfD decision to not leave a redirect was incorrect, or that the closer's summary was inaccurate, please take this up via Wikipedia:Deletion review. — The Anome (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that @Ingenuity: has changed their mind (see discussion on their talk page). Given this, I've undeleted the page and restored it to your version with the redirect. I will also unprotect it. — The Anome (talk) 10:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, The Anome, and thanks for the notifications. I'm just up and won't have time to respond in detail until later, but do you understand that your deletion of the redirect was an IAR move not authorized by speedy deletion policy? If not, I can go through things with you on both why 1) deleting the redirect wasn't an appropriate action in the first place, and 2) keeping a redirect there is actually the more encyclopedic outcome. No rush to get back to me on this--I believe this is far more important than it is urgent. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It seemed like the correct action at the time as the result of the AfD until I realised it wasn't, but think we've quickly reached a result that satisfied everyone and is completely policy-compliant. I'm happy to apologise for my temporary deletion of the redirect, if that will help. — The Anome (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but just for future reference, I have the time to go through my reasoning. I've been around working in ATDs for more time than most editors, so here's what prompted me to do what I did:

1) AfD says no article, and BLP concerns are an issue. Fair enough, good starting point.

2) AfD also agrees that the title is terrible--keepers or deleters, even the original author decided it was a bad idea.

2a) ...but it's not G10 bad. It's tacky and certainly offensive, and while many people agree with that, no one seriously argued that the title, as a title, was inherently offensive, but rather the content at that problematic title was. As I noted {{R from non-neutral name}} is for handling just such situations.

3) So what about the AfD consensus? There's two ways to read "no redirect"

3a) No redirect, meaning the content is deleted rather than the closing admin just retargeting the page to turn it into a redirect. This has the effect of hiding all the content that is asserted to be BLP violations (which I personally doubt, but never went through the article looking for issues), or

3b) No redirect ever, delete it and salt it. As you'll note the closing admin did not create-protect the title.

Which brings us to the question: should no redirect ever exist at that point? In general, the point of redirects to a more neutral name is to assume that good faith readers hitting a bad link should be redirected to the right place, and bad faith readers should be exposed to the proper way Wikipedia chooses to cover the controversial topic. Either way, redirects are cheap and one should exist somewhere unless the title is per se G10 level abuse or the link was so new that no one would accidentally land on it. Or, perhaps, if the title was too new and not worth redirecting. With 61 page watchers and 77+k pageviews, even though attenuating over time, it's reasonable to assume that someone, somewhere, might land on whatever showed up at that previous name, even if redirected from a non-Wikipedia source. I don't know that we have any hard and fast rules on this one, so call it a judgment call.

My choice to recreate was based on the assumption that 3a was the desired outcome, and 3b was an overly strict reading of the closing admin's statement: there was absolutely support for retaining neither title nor content, but also a belief that the proper content should be given DUE weight in Catherine's real bio article. Again, this was informed by a lack of general clamor to G10 the entire thing (and CSD's aren't applied, in general, when good editors differ over the applicability) and the closing admin's not salting the title. Oh, on a technical policy level, CSD-G4 doesn't apply to redirects created after an AfD, because a redirect is not substantially identical to the deleted article. If it had been deleted at RfD, future creations would be G4 eligible, but that's not what happened, and I was thus aware that this might spawn a future discussion, but did not believe it to be speedy deletable as such.

Thanks for coming to my TED talk on redirects after controversial deletions. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"Where is Kate?" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Where is Kate? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 14 § Where is Kate? until a consensus is reached. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:59, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I disagree, as you might suspect. Jclemens (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)