Right now everyone linked to this bombardment of redirection seems to be voting for deletion, so why not go through the proper pathway for that? ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Reply Except I do not think any of us wants the article deleted, which is the point of AFD. But containing the discussion solely to the talk page when it's essentially a !vote on soft deletion seems to me like WP:GAMING and avoiding the wider array of users who view AfDs as opposed to localized talk page discussions. ImaginesTigers ( talk) 21:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Reply No, an AfD discussion isn't required. Indrian ( talk) 21:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Reply Let's discuss it at Talk:Klobb.
However, you are the one continually undoing the edits of others ZXCVBNM, so the onus is really on you to present your views and gain a consensus for your edit. Its how Wikipedia works, though I agree its better to gain that consensus through a discussion rather than a small edit war.
Also, four editors taking the same position is a consensus, not a brute force attack. A talk page discussion is the better way. In fact, while AFDs often do end in a consensus to redirect, the primary purpose is to see if an article should be removed entirely as opposed to merely redirected. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 21:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Reply Yeah, there should definitely be be a talk page discussion to see where consensus is, but our redirect policies do not necessitate an AFD discussion. At this point people are just trying to bruteforce to get their way. Namcokid 47 (Contribs) 21:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Reply The third revert didn't even have an edit summary no less.
It gets redirected for failing WP:N, then the article creator reverts it, then somebody reverts them, etc." Redirecting is a suitable alternative to deletion. WP:REDIRECT says: "Somebody made a page for a non-notable weapon in a game. ImaginesTigers ( talk) 21:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Reply No it shouldn't. Edit warring over this is really silly come on. I didn't care much for the article when it was pointed out to me, but for now the article should be restored until the nominator initiates a discussion and consensus is established. ZXCVBNM ( TALK) 19:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Reply After the first redirect was contested, it should have become an AfD. But this kind of thing is just WP:GAMING behavior. I'm fine with the article going to AfD if people think it's not notable, I'd be happy to defend it there. A day after it became a Good Article no less. Can I get some admin eyes on this article please? A group of editors are basically attempting to subvert the AfD process by converting the article to a bare redirect.
0 kommentar(er)
