This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Doncram (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 29 December 2012 (→House at 1022 West Main Street: nonsense). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:49, 29 December 2012 by Doncram (talk | contribs) (→House at 1022 West Main Street: nonsense)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) < 2012 December 28 Deletion review archives: 2012 December 2012 December 30 >29 December 2012
File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png
There were two keeps. However, the administrator deleted it without proper rationale. Attempts to contact the administrator were unsuccessful because he retired. Also, the administrator was subject to Arbitration until motion is suspended. If temporarily undeleted, then we must know whether the image can increase readers' understanding of the episode in question. By the way, it was reviewed one month ago, but it was mass deletion review. This deletion is a test to find out whether we can go one at a time or make one review on two or three files.
As for the file itself, I bet it worked in Production section of "Burns' Heir". I mean, why using a free photo of Richard Simmons? Robot and human being are different from each other. George Ho (talk) 21:38, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Overturn. When every voter on an XFD says to keep, there are only two possible closes: Keep, or No Consensus if the XFD didn't get enough input. There's no possible way that the consensus of voters on this XFD was to delete. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
House at 1022 West Main Street
The deleting editor, an administrator, Nyttend, has twice deleted a series of valid redirects in September and again in November, for a set of NRHP-listed places in Ohio for which I had created a combo article, Hobart Welded Steel House Company and its works to cover them all. Each redirect pointed to a subsection about one NRHP-listed place in this combo article. Covering multiple similar NRHP-listed places in one article is fine and good; other editors concerned with NRHP short articles have so argued, in other contexts that Nyttend is familar with (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/St. Boniface Cemetery, Wrought-Iron Cross Site where Nyttend commented). What seems salient here is that the places are in Indiana or Ohio where the deleting editor has been exercising extreme oversight, to put it mildly. The deleting editor is fully aware of the fact that the deletions performed did not conform to any speedy deletion criteria, having been so informed by me at least twice. First discussion is archived at here, second "discussion" is at at Nyttend's talk, still showing. (A Nyttend statement to me also appears at User talk:Doncram#Hobart steel houses, but I quote that fully and respond to that in the Nyttend Talk page discussion.) Nor would their deletion be justified by any regular deletion criteria, nor by any redirects for discussion criteria, but that has not been tested by any such proceeding. The speedy deletion argument cited in the twice deletions was argument R3, which is for "Implausible typos", which always clearly never applied.
- This is a request for restoration of these specific pages/redirects. However, it is part of a pattern of behavior by the deleting editor (in which the editor deleted other Ohio and Indiana NRHP-listed place articles) which I could document and/or may have to be addressed in another forum. If commentators would address the clarity of wrongness by the deleting editor of this set of instances of behavior, that would perhaps help in heading off the need for another forum. You can comment this way or not, but I think it needs to be clarified to the deleting editor that adminstrative actions of the type taken are not acceptable by consensus of editors (in addition to being incorrect by specific policy and guidelines). Anyhow, I request restoration of the following items:
- House at 1022 West Main Street, where redirect was to Hobart Welded Steel House Company and its works#House at 1022 West Main Street
- Hobart Circle Historic District, where redirect was to Hobart Welded Steel House Company and its works#Hobart Circle Historic District
- House at 203 Penn Road, where redirect was to Hobart Welded Steel House Company and its works#House at 203 Penn Road
- E.A. Hobart House, where redirect was similar (while note that similar E. A. Hobart House was not deleted)
- House at 121 South Ridge, where redirect was similar
- House at 129 South Ridge, where redirect was similar
- House at 145 South Ridge, where redirect was similar
- William Hobart Vacation House
- I let the issue lie for a bit, since November, perhaps temper would have been cooled i dunno. I will post notice of this deletion review at User talk:Nyttend and User talk:Cbl62 (who commented about deletion by Nyttend of similar Ohio NRHP articles I had created). doncram 21:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Endorse. Doncram fails to observe that R3 is also applicable to implausible misnomers. These are names of individual houses (which pass our notability criteria) produced by a company, and he attempted to redirect them to the company. Imagine that we had no article on the Titanic; if we created it as a redirect to its builder, Harland and Wolff, it would be completely implausible. The situation is the same here. Redirects exist for lots of purposes, per the "Purposes of redirects" section of WP:R, but none of them would be fulfilled if someone who's looking for a building article is sent to an article about the company that built it. Moreover, Doncram's accusation that I know that these pages do not qualify for speedy deletion is blatantly wrong and a WP:WIAPA violation — I know that they do qualify. I delete all implausible redirects that I find, as long as they're recent. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- That is nonsense. They are redirects from official NRHP names, or at least names appearing in the NRIS database, to the article sections specifically about the NRHP-listed buildings. NRHP editors create redirects from NRHP names all the time, e.g. from perhaps poorly named "Beam's Shell Service Station and Office, (Former)" to something that serves better as a Misplaced Pages article name (about Beam's, see its Talk page). Here, Nyttend has been policing a personal user page User:Nyttend/Ohio NRHP/Miami and has similar userpages for all county lists of Ohio NRHP-places. To suggest that they are not valid topics is nonsense. To suggest that they cannot be covered in one combo article about a company and its works is nonsense. It is clearly not "implausible redirect" in any common English meaning of the term. Insisting that I am blatantly wrong is nonsense. I don't know what is Nyttend's motivation for all this, but I think that assertions that I am blatantly wrong could serve a different wish, towards blocking me or driving me away from Ohio and Indiana NRHP-listed articles. I resent Nyttend just now posting a "Final warning" and threat to block me at my Talk page about my supported-well-enough assertion that he has been fully notified, is fully aware, of the fact that "implausible redirect" reasoning is nonsense. It is nonsense. --doncram 22:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)