- Round World version of the Silmarillion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Incorrect interpretation of consensus. The AfD was closed as redirect to a target in which there is no discussion of the topic. Inevitably, a subsequent RfD deleted the page because of that. Of the twelve editors who responded to the AfD, only two called for redirect. One of those called for redirect to an entirely different target (which actually does have a section discussing the topic at Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium#Spherical-earth cosmology both now and at the time of the AfD) and the other did not give a target at all. It is true that several participants called for merge to the closer's chosen target, but if that was the intention of the closer, using {{Afd-merge to}} and {{Afd-merge from}} templates would have been a better option rather than an immediate redirect per the adminstrator instructions. SpinningSpark 09:27, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- In practice, a redirect is the same thing as a merge except that during a merge you also copy stuff over. If memory serves, I didn't get a clear impression whether folks were sure that there was mergeable material and only closed as redirect because of the aforementioned equivalence. Anyhow, I think this should have been a close to merge, if we are OK with treating the headcount as more important than the sourcing issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- They are "the same thing...except that during a merge you also copy stuff over". From an editorial point of view that makes them radically different imo. From an administrative close point of view they are also different because, as I already pointed out, the administrator instructions call for them to be treated differently. Either way, the page has ended up deleted when that was not the result of the AfD. I'm not arguing for headcount over sourcing, my argument in the AfD was that the article was actually sourced from the Chrisptopher Tolkein source, which position I can defend more robustly and directly now than I did then. SpinningSpark 10:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn. The subsequent RfD rejects the notion of “redirect”, and so the AfD needs to be re-run, to decide between “keep” and “delete”. AfD is not Wikipedia:Proposed article mergers and it cannot force a merge. Chide User:Piotrus for “Can anyone rescue this?”; AfD is not for cleanup. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- While it can reasonably be argued that the RfD was defective, I think it is better to send this back to AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse-ish (but cleanup of this mess is needed). It's not AfD's fault nobody bothered to add a sentence mentioning this to the target article. If you want to chide anyone, "chide" RfDs participants and/or the admin who deleted this before a single sentence was merged. What we should do is to restore this as a redirect and merge a sentence. Also, I'll chide Joe for not supporting desire to rescue articles. There is nothing wrong with occasional cleanup, and I think you misunderstood both the intention of what I asked and what WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP is about. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:40, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Piotr. I read you nomination as seeking deletion, not seeking to rescue, and ending with a challenge to someone else to rescue it this week or see it deleted. I thought article rescue was reviewing AfD for poor articles being deleted for looking poor and improving them to the point of being AfD-proof.
- AfD often closes with a consensus to redirect with an open option to merge, but in this case the redirect was a compromise, was not a strong consensus, and I think the RfD pushes back on the call of "redirect" enough to overturn it.
- I consider all the "merge" !votes to be fully valid "do not delete" !votes. Reading the "redirect" !votes as "delete", I think it leans to "delete", but a renomination with "merge" off the table will simplify the discussion. If someone wants to merge, can they do it quicker than someone else does the renomination? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- IMHO rescue is always on the table and seeked out in all and any deletion discussions. After all, it is the alternative to deletion, and is just as valid of an outcome as the deletion itself. In either case, I stand by my view that the AfD was closed correctly (with the decision to softdelete - redirect - and merge) but the problem lies with the RfD which killed the history before anything, apparently, was merged. This should have been temporarily kept with this 'consensus to merge, please do it' template you occasionally see. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- So, Draftify is an acceptable solution? SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Piotrus, DRV is not the place to discuss how much should be merged, but since you raise it, and to knock it on the head right away, "...add a sentence mentioning this to the target article" is an entirely inadequate action. Tolkein wrote "Old Flat World Version" and "Round World Version" on title page of the manuscripts he gave to Katherine Farrer for review. This shows that Tolkein himself considers this the defining feature of the major revision in the evolution of his work and this viewpoint is supported by other sources discussing that evolution. SpinningSpark 11:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I someone actually interested in merging the content? If so I'm sure we can restore the article somewhere so it can be merged, with appropriate attribution (which doesn't have to involve a redirect). If not then I don't think there's much to discuss, the consensus in the AfD was definitely that it shouldn't have a standalone article. Hut 8.5 11:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the issue was with the original AfD, but the MfD, which failed to consider retargeting as an WP:ATD. Thus, overturn the MfD of the redirect, redirect it appropriately, and merge as desired. This concerns me; redirects with history shouldn't be deleted as easily as redirects without any underlying edit history, but I'm not sure how to make that happen in such an under-appreciated venue. Jclemens (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to The Silmarillion without merging is not the same as merge to The Silmarillion. Nobody in the AFD called for the former so how can there be nothing wrong with the close? The only redirect target offered was a different article where a redirect actually makes sense. SpinningSpark 16:02, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not suggesting the original AfD be sustained, merely that the RfD was clearly and unequivocally beneath what we would expect. I generally don't split hairs between merge and redirect, as long as the history is maintained under the redirect so that existing material can be merged. I do not oppose overturning the AfD, just don't see a clear deletion policy goof like we have with the RfD. I'm also not opposed to article recreation under standard content expectations, either. Jclemens (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn:
D
D
D
D
D/M (legendarium)
K
M
M (legendarium / canon)
M (silmarillion)
M (silmarillion)
R (legendarium, cosmology of)
R - Closer said
There is some disagreement between editors on a merge or redirect ... Neither discussion strand seems to have gotten to a clear consensus. Thus, this will be a redirect to the most commonly cited merg target . "Thus, this will be a redirect" is kind of non sequitur. The most commonly cited target was a legendarium-type target, and two merge !votes (one tentative) identifying it as an obviously more accurate target also has bearing here. Consensus was interpreted incorrectly when a consensus to redirect straight to Silmarillion was found. Generally, I agree with the DRV nom. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Without opinion on the AFD, the RFD is plainly defective for not having considered retargeting to Cosmology of Tolkien's legendarium#Spherical-earth cosmology. This isn't even WP:ATD territory; rfd always retargets in preference to deletion if there's an appropriate target. —Cryptic 17:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The end result here, in which the title doesn't go anywhere, is wrong. There has been a wrong deletion, and Deletion Review is in order. The RFD should clearly be overturned. This was not filed as an appeal from the RFD, but we certainly should treat this as one, because we are the appeal board for both AFD and RFD. The AFD isn't clearly wrong, but it led to a sub-optimal result that became pessimal when the RFD deleted the title. So I think that we should start over. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn both the RFD and the AFD, and Relist at AFD, with a multiple-choice list of targets so as to make it more likely that the community and the closer can reach a rough consensus on a reasonable solution. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn the RFA and AFD with a relist at AFD, making it clear that the AFD outcome, if redirect, will bind RFD also. Stifle (talk) 12:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
|