Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 May 29

Gstatic.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

it is a useful redirect and got deleted because some people don't understand how websites work Palosirkka (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was not deleted because of anyone's understanding or otherwise about how web sites work but simply because it is not mentioned at the target, making it a useless redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such criteria for deletion. --Palosirkka (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are commonly deleted if here is no information at the target that would help a reader searching for that term. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I neither know nor care (at least for our purposes here) whether this is documented as a reason for deletion. I do know that the whole point of a redirect is to take readers to a place where we have content about what they are looking for. This did not fulfil that basic purpose. If you can add reliably-sourced, due-weight information to the Google article about this then a redirect to the section would be valid. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a bad idea to delete random articles. Wikipedia has a deletion policy after all. We have hundreds of domain redirects, most of those are useful. This website gstatic.com is probably among the very most used websites in the whole world as is powers google. You can run a simple whois to find out as much. This redirect would tell that to common folk who are not internet savvy. --Palosirkka (talk) 17:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect, without adding content to the Google article, told precisely nothing to the "common folk who are not internet savvy". It may also surprise you that, although I am in my sixties and have retired, I'm actually pretty "internet savvy" myself, as was my mother until she died last year. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It tells people that gstatic is google. --Palosirkka (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE #2 and consistent practice at RFD almost from the day it was created in November 2003 says lack of mention at a redirects target is absolutely a criterion for deletion. —Cryptic 21:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

#2 is fittingly about confusion. #8 would be closer but still not relevant here. Interesting if consistent practice is at odds with policy. --Palosirkka (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Is the appellant saying that the RFD was incorrectly closed, or that they want to create a new redirect?
  • • The RFD was closed correctly because it was and is a useless redirect, not mentioned at the target, and because there was a consensus in agreement.
    • If a new redirect is created, it will still be a useless redirect.
    • If not being mentioned at the target isn't a basis for deletion of redirects, then common sense is that it should be.
    • As was noted by one of the participants, gstatic.com returns a 404 error, so that the redirect is meaningless as well as useless.
    • As Phil Bridger says, if the appellant wants to add a discussion, it might be worth creating the redirect again, but not without an explanation.
    • Maybe the guidelines for deletion of redirects should be clarified, but in the meantime, common sense can be used.
    • The statement that some people don't understand how websites work is silly, and is almost a basis for a trout. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not useless redirect, for the reasons above... apparently common sense isn't. Another person who does not understand how websites work. If you don't understand websites, perhaps don't opine about them, please. --Palosirkka (talk) 17:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Review of Draft - The appellant should write, and submit for review, Draft:gstatic.com, explaining what the relationship is between gstatic and google. The fact that gstatic.com is registered to Google is true but useless, because gstatic is non-routable, unless there is an explanation of what it does. The reviewer may then accept the draft as a stand-alone article, or state that it should be merged into Google. The redirect, without explanation, is no more useful than typing "gstatic.com" in the URL bar when the name is non-routable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record an article at gstatic.com would be ineligible for G4 (what it was deleted under), as it was originally deleted at RfD. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 23:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would it be ineligible? WP:G4 says, "recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". This was a page, and RfD is a deletion discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  G4 also requires the page to be substantially identical. One would hope an actual article would not be substantially identical to a redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This was a redirect when it was deleted as a result of a discussion, and was a redirect when it was G4ed. It wasn't only substantially identical but was exactly identical. But I see now that User:IAmChaos was referring to a hypothetical article. That is not what this discussion is about, so I don't know why so many people are bringing up such a red herring. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If you don't understand the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, then read it before you insult retired IT engineers. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear you feel insulted. Do you wish a duel or to explain why? --Palosirkka (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Palosirkka - You said that I don't understand how websites work. I don't understand how gstatic.com works, except that it is registered to google but is non-routable, because the encyclopedia doesn't explain how, and simply providing a useless redirect will not further explain. You chose to disparage the knowledge, and thus the ability, of those who think that the redirect without further explanation is useless, thus insulting them. An apology would be in order (if you expect to contribute to the encyclopedia). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- misrepresenting policy and insulting people are not reasons to overturn. Reyk _YO! 00:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How did I exactly "misrepresent policy"? --Palosirkka (talk) 01:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue to handle cases where deletion review has not been properly followed. It is not a venue to merely express a disagreement with or objection to the outcome of a properly-closed deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would counsel the nominator to read WP:BLUDGEON. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest that either 1) Gstatic should be mentioned in Google's article before the redirect is recreated, or 2) a stub article on what gstatic is, using content like [1] that can in turn link to Google, substantially per Robert McClenon. Overturning a deletion doesn't change a problem, either solution just mentioned would, so endorse. Jclemens (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Redirect terms need to be mentioned, preferably explained, at the target, and for this reason it was properly deleted. Palosirkka misunderstands something fundamental. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Since that was the view of the discussion and is in line with normal practice. As a personal view I imagine google own thousand upon thousand domain names, redirecting each and everyone to their article (and likewise for everyone else) I can't see serves an encyclopaedic purpose - someone can use whois if they want to find out who owns a name - in the case of gstatic a redirect might imply (which would essentially mean uncited) that google have some relation to the URL but nothing else. I very much doubt that there is much scope to mention gstatic.com in the google article, as in the scheme of things which could be written about google, gstatic is trivia. There may conceivably be scope for an article about the use of separate domains/subdomains for static content (I haven't look or established it's a topic which would reach any inclusion standard) and gstatic could conceivably be an example of such practice (again haven't check if anyone has written about that in a usable reference, rather than a forum etc.) alongside other such examples. If that were the case I'd think gstatic.com could then be a redirect to that article. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I do think we should have a (short) article here. I'm trying to find sources. I'd love some help as I think I'm still below the WP:N bar:
  • Windows Club
  • Appuals.com
  • In passing reference in a book

Anyone have anything else? I'd imagine some book spends a page or two on it. It's a bit hard to search for because of how often in shows up in URLs. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd stick by my view you shouldn't focus on gstatic, the concept is applied in many cases so I suspect you'll find many more sources on that topic. e.g. [2]. I would suspect such an article could discuss or use as an example gstatic.com and would then become a suitable redirect target. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion of redirect, per the RFD (confusing, since no mention at target). It is possible that there is enough material to write an article about gstatic.com, or (at editorial discretion) discuss it at the Google article. In the latter case, it might then make sense to create a redirect. But unless/until that would happen, the consensus at RFD is reasonable and no real argument has been presented to overturn it. Martinp (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The redirect is promotional and was rightfully deleted. desmay (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, what? Back up three feet and run over that again? Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]