Overturn to redirect and restoration of history. While maintaining previous arguments to keep, a redirect seems suitable for the moment. Proposed _target: the updated publication section at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law.
To the esteemed administrators and fellow editors, I humbly submit my perspective regarding the recent deletion of the article in question. While Wikipedia operates on a model of collaborative editing and consensus-building, it is worth noting the principle stating, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument and cited recorded consensus."[1] In the discussion surrounding this article, a few editors kindly offered their insights. However, it appears that many comments were, with the utmost respect, more conclusory in nature rather than presenting substantive arguments. Such comments, while valid, might not fully capture the nuances and complexities of the subject matter at hand. On the other hand, there were multiple contributions from this editor presenting comprehensive and cogent arguments in favor of retaining the article. These arguments humbly offered a holistic view, shed light on overlooked aspects, and contributed significantly to the consensus-building process. In light of these considerations, I respectfully urge a reconsideration of the decision, placing emphasis on the depth and substance of arguments presented rather than their number.
Furthermore, as outlined in Wikipedia's deletion guidelines for administrators, a guiding principle states, "When in doubt, don't delete."[2] Indeed, this principle was emphasized in bold on Wikipedia's deletion guidelines for administrators page. Given the presence of reasonable doubt in this scenario, I believe it would have been more prudent to lean towards preservation. Given the shades of doubt that emerged from the deliberations, it appeared, at least to me, that the principle of being cautious in our decision-making held significant relevance.
A relevant Wikipedia information page states that if no consensus emerges "the article stays."[3] After reviewing the discussions and the points raised, I genuinely feel that a "rough consensus" was not clearly established. With this in mind, and in reiterating the arguments previously presented on the discussion page, I kindly propose that the article be reinstated. Because of these procedural problems, this editor humbly suggests to overturn the decision and keep redirect the article.
I am deeply appreciative of the time, effort, and dedication each administrator and editor has devoted to this process. It's discussions like these that uphold the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. I trust that our collective aim is to ensure the most accurate and comprehensive representation of information for our readers. In this spirit, I hope for a reconsideration of the decision to delete the article based on lack of consensus. Thank you for your understanding and consideration. Roclawfan (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken another look, I stand by my assessment that the consensus of this discussion was that this is not an appropriate article subject. I would also note to Roclawfan that, while it is not a strict requirement, it is generally expected that one will discuss the matter before going to DRV. SeraphimbladeTalk to me16:51, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect (with restoration of history). While there was consensus against keeping the page outright, there was not consensus to delete the page as opposed to redirecting it. Only the nominator raised points against a redirect, while no other delete voter objected to it. Even the closer opined that [c]reation of a redirect to an appropriate _target is at editorial discretion. While the proposed _target, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law, may not be perfect, a re_targeting discussion can take place on the article's talk page or at RFD. I also recommend that Roclawfan become familiar with WP:TLDR and WP:WALLSOFTEXT to avoid lengthy arguments that often are either not read or breezed over. Carson Wentz (talk) 17:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I would have opposed redirection for the reason mentioned by Randykitty:
I am not sure that merging/redirecting to the Law School is a good idea, given that this publication is not mention on its website (not even in the page dedicated to Law Journals)
Endorse The possible outcomes of the discussion here were delete, redirect, or merge - not keep, not no consensus - and there was clear opposition to a redirect or merge. Good close. SportingFlyerT·C09:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse everybody except the OP thought we shouldn't have a standalone article on this subject, and the Keep arguments were not very convincing as they mostly consisted of general statements that the journal is great, rather than providing supporting evidence. For example there was a claim that the subject meets the general notability guideline, but this wasn't accompanied with any references to actual sources. In fact the article did not cite any third-party sources and was entirely referenced to the journal's own website and listings maintained by the journal on other websites. This is a big problem because Wikipedia:Verifiability (one of our core policies) says that all article subjects should have at least one third-party reliable source available. While there was some support for a redirect, there was also some opposition and deletion doesn't preclude the creation of a redirect. Hut 8.512:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There was consensus not to have a standalone page, no proposals what to with it apart from deleting or redirecting it as an alternative, and this alternative turned out to be controversial, no consensus formed for redirection, so the outcome defaulted to deletion. If someone wants the redirect, they can create the redirect.—Alalch E.13:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Four editors (including nom) voted against keeping the article in mainspace, and just one (OP here) voted keep. Therefore, keep or NC is not reasonable because of the clear numerical majority and that the strength of the keep side is not strong, as the OP in the AfD posts walls of text and claims unsupported by P&Gs (e.g., in short, the platform's multifaceted approach and commitment to academic excellence make it suitable for a stand-alone article. Regarding overturning to redirect, I usually support closing as redirect even if it is the only vote as so if it is both P&G based rationale and unrebutted (e.g., see my views here). But in this case, 1) the ATD has been explicitly challenged and rebutted by two editors, these being the OP here and the nominator, and 2) the redirect/merge votes just said "redirect and merge to _target" without any further rationales or commentary. Therefore, this is not a case where redirect is significantly better than delete IMO. Thanks. VickKiang(talk)00:49, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect 1) Contrary to the above, there was no opposition to a merge/redirect, but there was a note by the nom that the site wasn't mentioned at the proposed _target (a surmountable problem), and a Keep'er arguing that keep was a better option than merge/redirect--to presume that !vote means deletion is preferable to merging is an interesting proposition. 2) ATDs don't need consensus; a reasonable ATD is to be implemented, as per deletion policy, unless there is no good option OR it's clear that there's consensus that deletion is better than the ATD(s). In this case, the issue is notability, so there is no harmful content (G10-11-12) reason to delete the content while doing a redirect. Again, this is pretty basic policy stuff: getting NN but un-harmful content out of mainspace should be simple to do, simple to revert if better sourcing is found later. Admins deleting NN stuff when a redirect leaving history intact is possible is not a policy-based outcome, regardless of LOCALCONSENSUS. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your second point, but I don't understand your first point. The problem of not being mentioned on the _target page is surmountable, but I wouldn't expect a closing admin to add a cited mention to a page; that seems like an unreasonable burden that would create more problems than it solves. In the future, I would think that at least one Redirect voter should ensure the suggested _target is a valid redirect _target (rather than the admin). Suriname0 (talk) 17:03, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the only thing separating a close between a delete and a redirect is the mention at the _target, then yes, someone, including the closing admin, should insert a bare mention of the to-be-redirected-topic at the proposed _target. Remember WP:DGAF's "When in doubt, don't delete" expects admin efforts to solve problems without deletion, and while it might be a novel interpretation If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page doesn't preclude editing a _target page in order to make a redirect landing there a logical outcome. Again, I realize this is not something we've traditionally expected of closing admins, but it's logically consistent with the values we've conveyed in policy. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse on the primary issue. On the matter of redirection, I read no consensus for or against the proposed _target, even though against is slightly more persuasive (beyond the 3-2 count) which would make redirect preferable, but a delete result within discretion, especially as it's noted as soft with respect to the redirect. I'd thus endorse that also, only restore the history of anyone actually wants to create the redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect A !vote to redirect and one to delete as non-notable are one in the same, with the only difference being that there is a suitable _target in the former case. Any !votes for "delete" should be considered to implicitly support "redirect" given a suitable _target unless they contain a rationale for why the history needs to be erased. Only one delete !voter (the nom) raised any objection to a redirect and that was only to cite that this article was not mentioned in the _target page, which is an easily WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. The other objection to a redirect came from a keep voter and it would be absurd to believe this person would prefer deletion over redirect. FrankAnchor13:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Only one delete !voter (the nom) raised any objection to a redirect and that was only to cite that this article was not mentioned in the _target page, which is an easily WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem, Randykitty wrote I am not sure that merging/redirecting to the Law School is a good idea, given that this publication is not mention on its website even in the page dedicated to Law Journals...(Emphasise mine). By saying "its website" and linking to the website's page on law journals, I read this as Randykitty meaning that they oppose because National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University School of Law's website does not mentions this journal in its website or lists. So this is completely different to opposing because the Wikipedia page does not mention it- am I misreading something? Thanks. VickKiang(talk)02:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's the closing administrator's role to determine whether the keep voter would prefer a redirection, and absurd as it may be, the case be made there that there be no appropriate redirect _target, that issue could be read either as consensus or no consensus. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The closing admin's role is not to assess whether a keep voter would prefer redirection to deletion. However, a closer's role is to apply common sense where appropriate. In this case, common sense would indicate someone who wants the article kept would prefer having part of it kept (e.g. the history) than nothing at all, unless the voter explicitly stats a preference to deletion over redirect, which was not the case here. This became even clearer when the keep voter, who is also the appellant to this DRV, requested it be overturned to a redirect.FrankAnchor18:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore history if a redirect is created. While there have been some objections to a redirect at the AfD, they are RfD-style arguments on why there shouldn't be a redirect rather than AfD-style arguments on why the content should be hidden from public view. Overall there is no consensus against the redirect, so one approach is to create a redirect, restore the history underneath it (since there was never a consensus to delete those revisions, only that the subject wasn't notable enough for a standalone article), and then anyone can send it to RfD to properly discuss the appropriateness of the redirect. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠05:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (involved). The rebuttal to redirecting was strong and not adequately challenged. I !voted for delete at the very end of the AfD, well after the discussion on the merits of redirecting; it shouldn't have been necessary for me to state that I explicitly opposed redirection since that should have been evident from the fact that I !voted to delete.
