Eunice Penix – In the absence of input from the closing admin, its not clear if we are endorsing or overturning to delete but the consensus is that we should not retain the content. With regard to the redirect there is no clear consensus and as redirects are an editorial matter with no admin rights used to set it, I would suggest that anyone who wants to discuss the redirect went to RFD. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eunice Penix (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) Administrator Mark Arsten closed this AFD as a redirect even though only one editor[1] clearly favored that result, and their argument for the redirect was WP:CHEAP. Six editors firmly believed Eunice Penix failed WP guidelines for politicians. Admittedly two of those had redirect as an option, but delete was their first choice[2] in both cases, and the second editor thought[3] a redirect would be a bit pointless. Two of the participants in the AFD expressed their concerns with administrator Mark Arsten. These talk page discussions can be found here[4] and here[5]. ...William 14:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Although I was admittedly reluctant to bring this to DRV, I do think the consensus here was quite clear to delete. As pointed out, two of the three who even mentioned redirecting didn't seem to think much of the idea, but simply said they wouldn't fight it. I realize that this isn't a huge deal and that the article is, in effect, deleted, but my main concern here is partially that the redirect makes it more tempting to recreate such an obviously non-notable article and that the consensus here was quite clear, but virtually ignored because the closing admin decided that not actively opposing a redirect was essentially passive approval. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Since the history was deleted before the redirect, to permit better discussion here , I'm temporarily restoring it , to replace the redirect that was made to Dade City, Florida. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] If this was redirected with the history intact, I'd see cause for complaint. The close, though, was essentially "delete and I'll editorially redirect it afterward as suggested", the first part of which was the proper result of this discussion, and the second half not unreasonable to do. It's a little irritating that the closer didn't spell that out in the close, but not worth fighting about - I see this on the same level as someone bringing a no-consensus close to DRV and arguing that it should have been a keep instead. So I guess I endorse the deletion, view the redirect afterward as editorial not administrative, think this can be discussed at RFD if folks want the redirect gone, and don't think the difference is in DRV's remit. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Sustain redirect WITH HISTORY - IMO, a redirect can be protected to the point of limiting editing to administrators only, since the content of a redirect article is indeed trivial. Per WP:R#DELETE: The redirect page does NOT make it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine [there is only one (or zero) "semi-famous person(s)" named Eunice Penix] The redirect will NOT likely cause confusion [there is only one (or zero) "semi-famous person(s)" named Eunice Penix] The redirect is NOT offensive or abusive The redirect does NOT constitute self-promotion or spam The redirect makes sense [Penix is only notable for her work in Dade City] It is NOT a cross-namespace redirect out of article space The redirect is NOT broken The redirect is NOT a novel NOR very obscure synonym for an article name The target article does NOT need to be moved to the redirect title The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, but this has been ruled against The page HAS a potentially useful page history The page aids searches on certain terms [if a redirect from Eunice Penix to Dade City, Florida (the latter being a NOTABLE place) should NOT exist, then Penix's name should NOT be shown in the article at all] FreeRangeFrog and Robert Horning "[find] them useful" Is there a neutrality issue involved? If not, then I ask what policy based reason there is not to have a redirect?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC Comment. Jax, this DRV is about whether the closing administrator properly closed the AFD. Read this from the DRV page 'Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.' A redirect outcome from the AFD even you can't logically conclude as being correct, because the only editor who supported redirect was yourself. Seven editors on the other hand including myself, not six as I wrote above, said delete all per the guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN. Seven to one, the outcome is wrong. Your arguments for redirect aren't the issue anymore, a administrator clearly closed this AFD wrongly and its past time it be corrected....William 19:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] You know what Jax? If you have an allegation to make, then man up and make it. But your passive-aggressive "is there a neutrality issue" crap is nothing more than a cheap, low-brow attempt to try to divert attention from the issue by implying that someone has an ulterior motive. The motive is simple: Penix is non-notable. I understand you are upset because you wasted time creating an article about a non-notable person, but questioning the motives of someone else just to soothe your ego is not the way to go. The clear consensus was to delete. Not redirect, to delete. You are so focused on why we shouldn't redirect, you forget that there is no good reason TO redirect. Penix is a very, very unlikely search term, so there is really little reason to justify it. Sure, re-directs are useful, when they make sense. This one doesn't make sense. The closing admin ignored the obvious consensus, opting instead to make some assumptions about and to take it upon himself to redirect.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment about the redirect The redirect was made to the article, but the only mention of the person was in the infobox. When Penix is no longer in this position int will be a blind redirect. But whatever significance Penix has is permanent. Restoring the history goes some way to solving the problem. Normally we delete history in cases where the previous text would be copyvio, or entirely promotional, of abusive, or otherwise highly improper--not just when it is a question of insufficient notability. There might after all be additional importance rising to notability at a later date, and the text will remain in the history for reuse. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] What significance is there to consider permanent? Leaving it because someday, maybe, she might possible become notable doesn't sound really convincing. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reply - I am paraphrasing from official policy WP:R#DELETE. I have already made my allegations of WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR (for the same exact triple deletion I might add) against you (Niteshift). If there is no good reason not to redirect, then WP:CHEAP may apply. I have listed 13 bullet points above, including that 'FreeRangeFrog and Robert Horning "[find] them useful"'. Eunice Penix got dozens of hits for every month that it has been live. The goal of The Wikimedia Foundation is to expand the sum of human knowledge, which deleting the redirect opposes. On EXACTLY which of the 13 bullet points am I mistaken?--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Hey sport, your whole 3RR nonsense (the same thing you violated) is in a totally different discussion. Stick to the topic at hand. Second, I'm not talking about your whining about civility either. I'm talking about your allegations in this discussion. Pay attention and try to keep up. Meanwhile, you've said nothing new about this discussion and ignored what was actually asked of you: Why should this be redirected? Note that the question is not can it be, the question is why should it be. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. Why should we have a redirect for such an unlikely search term? Lastly, consider reading WP:OVERLINK. That will tell you why I removed the wikilinks for terms already linked in the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] You're wrong on 1) There is no useful history.....she's non-notable and almost everyone but you knows this. 3) is a non-reason. No knowledge will be lost by letting Ms. Penix slip into the obscurity she has spent her entire non-Wikipedia live in. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reply - I am making no accusations about alterior motives. I am simply stating why "Eunice Penix" should be redirected to Dade City, FL, and Niteshift is the only user who has accused me of this. Apparently, there were dozens of hits every month for her Wikipedia page going back to January 2011. My being "wrong on 1)" and 3) being "a non-reason" are merely opinion, and AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE no matter how many people "vote" in a certain way. For WP:R#KEEP, only one reason is required to meet this section (and thus keep the redirect). The statement "The page aids searches on certain terms" has not been disproven, and people from Pasco County, FL might use her name in a search. A section about Penix could plausibly be added to DCF. For "Reasons for deleting", only one reason MIGHT need to be proven in order to delete the redirect. None have been proven so far. If "Eunice Penix" is such an unlikely search term, why did her site get so many hits in 2011 and 2012? Regarding my trying to divert attention, WP:RNEUTRAL details my take on neutrality of redirects. Also note that "Reasons for not deleting" bullet 5 says "Someone finds them useful", not thousands of people finds them useful.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] I've never seen someone creat arbitrary breaks as often as you do. You said "Is there a neutrality issue involved". That is a direct implication, made in bad faith, and it's really just the same passive-aggressive behavior you've done all along. Of course my opinions are opinion. Thank you for that scoop Captain Obvious. Keeping a redirect because someone in her town might search her isn't really compelling. Someone might search for "jaxeditsonalaptop" too. Should we create that redirect and point it to your user page? "Dozens" of views a month. Without even talking about duplicate views or what not, when one considers the volume of views the English Wikipedia gets every day, "dozens" of views in a month isn't too compelling either. As for a future section in the Dade City article, unless she does something especially notable, it would likely (and correctly) be removed as undue weight. In the end, I didn't even support bringing this to DRV, even though I agree with it, because the article about the non-notable person was effectively deleted, but William makes a good point, the clear consensus was ignored and that's why I need to support overturning it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - deleting an article where someone wants a redirect and such a redirect is sensible, then forcing them to create the redirect, is pointlessly bureaucratic. Wily D 10:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment If you support the closing administrator's decision here, are you telling us any administrator can impose their own outcome rather than the consensus of the AFD? If so administrators should be the final court of all AFDs. Editors have no voice in the matter....William 13:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] They didn't impose their own outcome, they imposed the reasonable outcome of the discussion. You've gotten lost somewhere between WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. The subject fails WP:N, but a redirect is perfectly sensible. Why delete the article and then create the redirect, rather than just redirect? (Especially when the history may be useful for the article it was redirect to. Why make more work for the Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles when there's no advantage to doing so?) Wily D 17:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] I think his point is that there should be no redirect period. It's an obscure person. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Then I'm not sure whether I should go with "That's a poorly thought out point" or "RfD would probably keep it". A personal not notable enough themselves redirected to a topic which they're important to, where the topic is notable, is standard practice and the best thing to do for readers looking for information on that person. Wily D 17:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] That answer pre-supposes that she is important to the topic. She really isn't. She's really done nothing of note or held any office beyond being a part-time councilperson in a small city, which probably explains the lack of significant coverage in the first place. In any case, I doubt either of us will change the others mind. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Yes, I take it as a given that she's important to the topic because she's important to the topic. Only someone wholly unfamiliar with the situation would assert otherwise, and I'm not sure why I'd discuss it with such a person (indeed, I'm pretty sure a worthwhile discussion would be impossible). Wily D 10:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] And yet we've seen no evidence that she is important to any topic. She is a minor, part-time official in a small city. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] overturn/delete It's clear that the keep responses for this article mistakenly misunderstood the significance of being mayor pro tempore. It's clear that Penix doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN either by virtue of position or due to notoriety. We don't create redirects for every minor politician who gets deleted, and this is not the way to start doing so. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Overturn - admins do not have supervotes. The consensus was delete, should have been deleted. Claritas § 17:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion: The article was deleted, closing admin created a redirect after the close which he didn't even need to mention. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong) This created confusion, but the article is deleted, and I am not in favor of it being recreated.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Could you clarify? Nobody is asking for it to be recreated. The issue was that it wasn't closed as a delete, it was closed as a redirect. That means tomorrow, it can be recreated and would have to go through AfD again because it was not (correctly) closed as deleted. It was closed as redirected, thus not making it a CSD candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] No, it was closed as redirect. Recreation contravenes that. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close: I can see why someone might question this (WP:ITSALLGREY) but it seems like a reasonable close. WP:RFD is --> that way. Toddst1 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Comment Why on earth should we have an RFD when the consensus of the AFD was delete? Everyone keeps ignoring that was the AFD's consensus by a mile, and that the closing administrator closed it his way. Why have a AFD then? Just nominate and have one administrator decide the outcome....William 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse close We're talking about the difference between a delete with no redirect and a delete with a redirect. Ladies and gentlemen, the game is not worth the candle. You can have an WP:RFD about the redirect if you feel you need it. If you honestly think that if next week, the article were to be recreated against the consensus of the AfD and it were to be speedied under G4, an admin wouldn't delete it and redirect, you are being ridiculous. When closing an AfD, if a bunch of people say delete, and someone suggests a plausible redirect target, I think it's perfectly reasonable for an admin to close it by redirecting. Redirecting a deleted article to a reasonable redirect target isn't "supervoting", it's implementing the delete decision in a way that benefits users by not giving them a broken link. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] overturn/delete I voted to delete, and that is what I meant. If I had favored a redirect that is what I would have voted for. I am dismayed to see myself as being counted as "not opposed to a redirect." There was nothing to indicate that I would have to actually state that I opposed a redirect, I took that as understood in my not voting to redirect. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The article was effectively deleted. A redirect is cheap and there is no history for anyone to take offense at. I believe it is within an administrator's discretion to decide on delete & redirect if delete is an outcome but redirect a viable option. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - I !voted delete at the AFD and my !vote has since been cited here and elsewhere because I suggested that a redirect would be "pointless", though that is exactly what ended up happening. To be clear, I remain of the view that a redirect is fairly pointless, but only because I can't imagine anyone typing E.u.n.i.c.e. P.e.n.i.x. into their search bar (this and this maybe... Aww, c'mon! You were all thinking it!). I suppose if someone really thinks it might be a valid search term then, hey... whatever (as I said in my original !vote). Stalwart111 00:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reply - If I were a major politician for a city with just over 6000 people in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area, I would be absolutely OK with having a redirect (or article) about me on Wikipedia. However, can you point to ONE reliable source outside of Wikipedia that talks about jax_0677 or "jaxeditsonalaptop" (or an organization/place by which I am employed)? Additionally, it would be "a cross-namespace redirect out of article space", "a novel or very obscure synonym" and "an improbable [typo] or [misnomer]" (not to mention "offensive or abusive"). Eunice Penix is the person's legal name, jax is not my legal name nor nickname recognized in society. Hundreds of musicians have redirects pointing to the Wikipedia page of their band, cases in point, Chris Kael, Jeff Worley and Maria Brink. Should those redirects be purged as well, just because the musicians are not notable? I was referring to the neutrality of the redirect, not the neutrality of this discussion when I made my statements. "Neutrality of redirects" details this. Additionally, the AfD is to be taken in the context of Wikipedia policy, not simply votes. Also, can you name ONE reason under "Reasons for deleting" at "WP:R" for deleting the article?--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] First, Penix isn't a "major politician" anywhere, so that's kind of a weak analogy. She was never the mayor, no matter how many times you (and others) screw it up and call her mayor. She was a pro temp. There she was never elected to be a mayor. She was appointed, by her other council members, to temporarily act as a mayor for functions. Every year, they appoint someone different. Why? Because there was no mayor. Heck, even being a council member is a part-time job. Second, it doesn't matter how many sources use "jaxeditsonalaptop". Someone COULD use it as a search term. Despite that possibility, creating a redirect for that wouldn't make much more sense. Third, you've used this redirect as an end run. You copied and pasted the article, in its entirety, into the Dade City article, giving her 3 paragraphs about her bio and policitcal positions, while not even talking about the other members. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reply - First, Penix is one of the top ranking politicians in Dade City, FL, otherwise, her name wouldn't be listed on their wikipedia site. The Indiana state legislators are also part time, but this does not make them non-notable. Second, posting a redirect about me would involve WP:OUTING, and no one would find it "useful" (if I am mistaken, please let me know, as you admitted that you wouldn't find it useful). It would make a lot less sense to have a redirect to my user page, especially given all that I mentioned before. Third, One Direction has a biography section for its members, thererfore, Dade City could too if the Government section were formatted correctly, WP:BRD.--Jax 0677 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] First off, anyone who bothered to read the WP:POLITICIAN guideline (which you must not have done) would know that a state level officeholder like that is considered notable, regardless of part-time status. This makes your example ridiculous. The second "point" you made about outing is simply silly. Apparently telling you just how asinine the alleged "point" is can't be done, so I'll leave that to your imagination. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Ok, that's enough, from this point on, everyone should stop commenting on other contributors and instead focus on the editorial content of the dispute. Dreadstar ☥ 19:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Being mentioned in the infobox of a Wikipedia article is not proof of notability. Besides which, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Stalwart111 13:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Reply - I understand "WP:WINARS". IMO, per the AfD, Penix was mentioned in enough reliable articles to be notable for a redirect. If she was mayor pro-tem (not pro-temp), then she was the highest ranking official in Dade City during her term. I ask again, since redirects are cheap, which of the TEN terms of "Reasons for deleting" is met here? IMO, in this case, a redirect is better than a red link.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] "Sure, Redirect if people really think there is value, but a Merge based on the fact that she was "mentioned" in another article is not right, but that's what happened. Stalwart111 21:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Jax, Mayor pro tem is not the highest position in Dade City government, the Mayor is. I don't know where you keep getting such nonesense. Ms. Penix and the newest commissioner are the only ones of the current five not to have ever been the Mayor, making her less notable than three of the other four commissioners. However, even being the Mayor is not that big a deal, the mayor is also a commissioner, they get the same vote as the others commissioners, the difference is that the Mayor runs the meeting. The Mayor pro tem runs the meetings whenever the Mayor is absent. I don’t think Ms. Penix ever actually ran a commission meeting, making her Mayor pro tem position essentially an honorary one. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] This is EXACTLY the kind of wrongheaded thinking on Jax's part that this closure inspires. This editor has taken the inproperly worded closue as some sort of evidence that she was not found to be non-notable. He takes this as a determination that she was notable enough to avoid deletion and should be merged, creating a new issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse article was deleted within process and then the closer created a brief redirect and forgot to mention the deletion in the closure, now DRV? The redirect is reasonable considering the circumstances (former mayor and city commissioner of a small town, wasn't a unanimous delete AFD, article been in the project for nearly two years), and if the article gets recreated somehow without meeting the concerns of the AFD, a full protection should do until the subject is shown to meet notability guidelines. Secret ^account 06:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Unfortunately, the editor cut and pasted the entire article into the Dade City article, creating an WP:UNDUE issue, especially since no other office holder is in the article, just 3 paragrapghs about her life and political positions......and this redirect makes it so that the article really wasn't deleted, just put on another page. So now we just shift to a new article to debate the same stuff. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Which is obviously not okay. The contention here is that it might have been closed as straight Delete instead of Redirect. But Merge was certainly not an option which cut-paste dumping it into the other article amounts to. That "merge" was fairly bad faith. Your removal was entirely appropriate in my opinion. Stalwart111 05:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse There is not a perfect consensus in the AfD with regard to the redirect, more so in view of the oft-imprecise way "delete" is used in discussions as inclusive of delete-with-redirect. I notice at least one well-respected, policy-aware and frequent AfD participant uses a "delete" !vote without discussing pro- or con- regarding the redirect itself, and whose rationale only touches on the questions of evidence and policy that determine whether the article itself should be deleted, not whether a redirect after would be appropriate. And so, since AfD is not a vote, it would be reasonable (and in fact, nearly required, since, and I repeat, AfD is not a vote) to discount, in part or in full, any weight that !vote received with regard to redirection. This is a common issue, closing between delete and delete-with-redirect is a common and nuanced task of the world of closing AfDs, and requires, in my experience, wide closer discretion. In this case, I believe the close is solidly within those bounds, no matter my own feelings on it. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse- the consensus was to delete, the article was deleted. What happens after that is editorial judgment. I don't see a problem here. Reyk _YO! 07:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, but closing statement should be amended to "delete and redirect" or "delete; I am redirecting as a normal editor" for clarity. Skimming the history of the deleted article, all major additions appear to have been made by User:Jax 0677, so the merger to Dade City, Florida has no WP:Copying within Wikipedia issues. Flatscan (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Eunice Penix – In the absence of input from the closing admin, its not clear if we are endorsing or overturning to delete but the consensus is that we should not retain the content. With regard to the redirect there is no clear consensus and as redirects are an editorial matter with no admin rights used to set it, I would suggest that anyone who wants to discuss the redirect went to RFD. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Administrator Mark Arsten closed this AFD as a redirect even though only one editor[1] clearly favored that result, and their argument for the redirect was WP:CHEAP. Six editors firmly believed Eunice Penix failed WP guidelines for politicians. Admittedly two of those had redirect as an option, but delete was their first choice[2] in both cases, and the second editor thought[3] a redirect would be a bit pointless.

Two of the participants in the AFD expressed their concerns with administrator Mark Arsten. These talk page discussions can be found here[4] and here[5]. ...William 14:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Although I was admittedly reluctant to bring this to DRV, I do think the consensus here was quite clear to delete. As pointed out, two of the three who even mentioned redirecting didn't seem to think much of the idea, but simply said they wouldn't fight it. I realize that this isn't a huge deal and that the article is, in effect, deleted, but my main concern here is partially that the redirect makes it more tempting to recreate such an obviously non-notable article and that the consensus here was quite clear, but virtually ignored because the closing admin decided that not actively opposing a redirect was essentially passive approval. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the history was deleted before the redirect, to permit better discussion here , I'm temporarily restoring it , to replace the redirect that was made to Dade City, Florida. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this was redirected with the history intact, I'd see cause for complaint. The close, though, was essentially "delete and I'll editorially redirect it afterward as suggested", the first part of which was the proper result of this discussion, and the second half not unreasonable to do. It's a little irritating that the closer didn't spell that out in the close, but not worth fighting about - I see this on the same level as someone bringing a no-consensus close to DRV and arguing that it should have been a keep instead. So I guess I endorse the deletion, view the redirect afterward as editorial not administrative, think this can be discussed at RFD if folks want the redirect gone, and don't think the difference is in DRV's remit. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sustain redirect WITH HISTORY - IMO, a redirect can be protected to the point of limiting editing to administrators only, since the content of a redirect article is indeed trivial. Per WP:R#DELETE:

The redirect page does NOT make it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine [there is only one (or zero) "semi-famous person(s)" named Eunice Penix]
The redirect will NOT likely cause confusion [there is only one (or zero) "semi-famous person(s)" named Eunice Penix]
The redirect is NOT offensive or abusive
The redirect does NOT constitute self-promotion or spam
The redirect makes sense [Penix is only notable for her work in Dade City]
It is NOT a cross-namespace redirect out of article space
The redirect is NOT broken
The redirect is NOT a novel NOR very obscure synonym for an article name
The target article does NOT need to be moved to the redirect title
The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, but this has been ruled against

The page HAS a potentially useful page history
The page aids searches on certain terms [if a redirect from Eunice Penix to Dade City, Florida (the latter being a NOTABLE place) should NOT exist, then Penix's name should NOT be shown in the article at all]
FreeRangeFrog and Robert Horning "[find] them useful"

Is there a neutrality issue involved? If not, then I ask what policy based reason there is not to have a redirect?--Jax 0677 (talk) 18:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC

Comment. Jax, this DRV is about whether the closing administrator properly closed the AFD. Read this from the DRV page 'Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.' A redirect outcome from the AFD even you can't logically conclude as being correct, because the only editor who supported redirect was yourself. Seven editors on the other hand including myself, not six as I wrote above, said delete all per the guidelines of WP:POLITICIAN. Seven to one, the outcome is wrong. Your arguments for redirect aren't the issue anymore, a administrator clearly closed this AFD wrongly and its past time it be corrected....William 19:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know what Jax? If you have an allegation to make, then man up and make it. But your passive-aggressive "is there a neutrality issue" crap is nothing more than a cheap, low-brow attempt to try to divert attention from the issue by implying that someone has an ulterior motive. The motive is simple: Penix is non-notable. I understand you are upset because you wasted time creating an article about a non-notable person, but questioning the motives of someone else just to soothe your ego is not the way to go. The clear consensus was to delete. Not redirect, to delete. You are so focused on why we shouldn't redirect, you forget that there is no good reason TO redirect. Penix is a very, very unlikely search term, so there is really little reason to justify it. Sure, re-directs are useful, when they make sense. This one doesn't make sense. The closing admin ignored the obvious consensus, opting instead to make some assumptions about and to take it upon himself to redirect.Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the redirect The redirect was made to the article, but the only mention of the person was in the infobox. When Penix is no longer in this position int will be a blind redirect. But whatever significance Penix has is permanent. Restoring the history goes some way to solving the problem. Normally we delete history in cases where the previous text would be copyvio, or entirely promotional, of abusive, or otherwise highly improper--not just when it is a question of insufficient notability. There might after all be additional importance rising to notability at a later date, and the text will remain in the history for reuse. DGG ( talk ) 18:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What significance is there to consider permanent? Leaving it because someday, maybe, she might possible become notable doesn't sound really convincing. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I am paraphrasing from official policy WP:R#DELETE. I have already made my allegations of WP:CIVIL and WP:3RR (for the same exact triple deletion I might add) against you (Niteshift). If there is no good reason not to redirect, then WP:CHEAP may apply. I have listed 13 bullet points above, including that 'FreeRangeFrog and Robert Horning "[find] them useful"'. Eunice Penix got dozens of hits for every month that it has been live. The goal of The Wikimedia Foundation is to expand the sum of human knowledge, which deleting the redirect opposes.

On EXACTLY which of the 13 bullet points am I mistaken?--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey sport, your whole 3RR nonsense (the same thing you violated) is in a totally different discussion. Stick to the topic at hand. Second, I'm not talking about your whining about civility either. I'm talking about your allegations in this discussion. Pay attention and try to keep up. Meanwhile, you've said nothing new about this discussion and ignored what was actually asked of you: Why should this be redirected? Note that the question is not can it be, the question is why should it be. Just because we can do something doesn't mean we should do it. Why should we have a redirect for such an unlikely search term? Lastly, consider reading WP:OVERLINK. That will tell you why I removed the wikilinks for terms already linked in the discussion. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong on 1) There is no useful history.....she's non-notable and almost everyone but you knows this. 3) is a non-reason. No knowledge will be lost by letting Ms. Penix slip into the obscurity she has spent her entire non-Wikipedia live in. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I am making no accusations about alterior motives. I am simply stating why "Eunice Penix" should be redirected to Dade City, FL, and Niteshift is the only user who has accused me of this. Apparently, there were dozens of hits every month for her Wikipedia page going back to January 2011. My being "wrong on 1)" and 3) being "a non-reason" are merely opinion, and AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE no matter how many people "vote" in a certain way. For WP:R#KEEP, only one reason is required to meet this section (and thus keep the redirect). The statement "The page aids searches on certain terms" has not been disproven, and people from Pasco County, FL might use her name in a search. A section about Penix could plausibly be added to DCF. For "Reasons for deleting", only one reason MIGHT need to be proven in order to delete the redirect. None have been proven so far. If "Eunice Penix" is such an unlikely search term, why did her site get so many hits in 2011 and 2012?

Regarding my trying to divert attention, WP:RNEUTRAL details my take on neutrality of redirects. Also note that "Reasons for not deleting" bullet 5 says "Someone finds them useful", not thousands of people finds them useful.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen someone creat arbitrary breaks as often as you do. You said "Is there a neutrality issue involved". That is a direct implication, made in bad faith, and it's really just the same passive-aggressive behavior you've done all along. Of course my opinions are opinion. Thank you for that scoop Captain Obvious. Keeping a redirect because someone in her town might search her isn't really compelling. Someone might search for "jaxeditsonalaptop" too. Should we create that redirect and point it to your user page? "Dozens" of views a month. Without even talking about duplicate views or what not, when one considers the volume of views the English Wikipedia gets every day, "dozens" of views in a month isn't too compelling either. As for a future section in the Dade City article, unless she does something especially notable, it would likely (and correctly) be removed as undue weight. In the end, I didn't even support bringing this to DRV, even though I agree with it, because the article about the non-notable person was effectively deleted, but William makes a good point, the clear consensus was ignored and that's why I need to support overturning it. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - deleting an article where someone wants a redirect and such a redirect is sensible, then forcing them to create the redirect, is pointlessly bureaucratic. Wily D 10:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you support the closing administrator's decision here, are you telling us any administrator can impose their own outcome rather than the consensus of the AFD? If so administrators should be the final court of all AFDs. Editors have no voice in the matter....William 13:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't impose their own outcome, they imposed the reasonable outcome of the discussion. You've gotten lost somewhere between WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY and WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. The subject fails WP:N, but a redirect is perfectly sensible. Why delete the article and then create the redirect, rather than just redirect? (Especially when the history may be useful for the article it was redirect to. Why make more work for the Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles when there's no advantage to doing so?) Wily D 17:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think his point is that there should be no redirect period. It's an obscure person. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'm not sure whether I should go with "That's a poorly thought out point" or "RfD would probably keep it". A personal not notable enough themselves redirected to a topic which they're important to, where the topic is notable, is standard practice and the best thing to do for readers looking for information on that person. Wily D 17:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That answer pre-supposes that she is important to the topic. She really isn't. She's really done nothing of note or held any office beyond being a part-time councilperson in a small city, which probably explains the lack of significant coverage in the first place. In any case, I doubt either of us will change the others mind. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I take it as a given that she's important to the topic because she's important to the topic. Only someone wholly unfamiliar with the situation would assert otherwise, and I'm not sure why I'd discuss it with such a person (indeed, I'm pretty sure a worthwhile discussion would be impossible). Wily D 10:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yet we've seen no evidence that she is important to any topic. She is a minor, part-time official in a small city. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

overturn/delete It's clear that the keep responses for this article mistakenly misunderstood the significance of being mayor pro tempore. It's clear that Penix doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN either by virtue of position or due to notoriety. We don't create redirects for every minor politician who gets deleted, and this is not the way to start doing so. Mangoe (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - admins do not have supervotes. The consensus was delete, should have been deleted. Claritas § 17:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion: The article was deleted, closing admin created a redirect after the close which he didn't even need to mention. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong) This created confusion, but the article is deleted, and I am not in favor of it being recreated.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify? Nobody is asking for it to be recreated. The issue was that it wasn't closed as a delete, it was closed as a redirect. That means tomorrow, it can be recreated and would have to go through AfD again because it was not (correctly) closed as deleted. It was closed as redirected, thus not making it a CSD candidate. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was closed as redirect. Recreation contravenes that. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close: I can see why someone might question this (WP:ITSALLGREY) but it seems like a reasonable close. WP:RFD is --> that way. Toddst1 (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why on earth should we have an RFD when the consensus of the AFD was delete? Everyone keeps ignoring that was the AFD's consensus by a mile, and that the closing administrator closed it his way. Why have a AFD then? Just nominate and have one administrator decide the outcome....William 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse close We're talking about the difference between a delete with no redirect and a delete with a redirect. Ladies and gentlemen, the game is not worth the candle. You can have an WP:RFD about the redirect if you feel you need it. If you honestly think that if next week, the article were to be recreated against the consensus of the AfD and it were to be speedied under G4, an admin wouldn't delete it and redirect, you are being ridiculous. When closing an AfD, if a bunch of people say delete, and someone suggests a plausible redirect target, I think it's perfectly reasonable for an admin to close it by redirecting. Redirecting a deleted article to a reasonable redirect target isn't "supervoting", it's implementing the delete decision in a way that benefits users by not giving them a broken link. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

overturn/delete I voted to delete, and that is what I meant. If I had favored a redirect that is what I would have voted for. I am dismayed to see myself as being counted as "not opposed to a redirect." There was nothing to indicate that I would have to actually state that I opposed a redirect, I took that as understood in my not voting to redirect. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 00:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The article was effectively deleted. A redirect is cheap and there is no history for anyone to take offense at. I believe it is within an administrator's discretion to decide on delete & redirect if delete is an outcome but redirect a viable option. Drmies (talk) 00:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I !voted delete at the AFD and my !vote has since been cited here and elsewhere because I suggested that a redirect would be "pointless", though that is exactly what ended up happening. To be clear, I remain of the view that a redirect is fairly pointless, but only because I can't imagine anyone typing E.u.n.i.c.e. P.e.n.i.x. into their search bar (this and this maybe... Aww, c'mon! You were all thinking it!). I suppose if someone really thinks it might be a valid search term then, hey... whatever (as I said in my original !vote). Stalwart111 00:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - If I were a major politician for a city with just over 6000 people in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Florida Metropolitan Statistical Area, I would be absolutely OK with having a redirect (or article) about me on Wikipedia. However, can you point to ONE reliable source outside of Wikipedia that talks about jax_0677 or "jaxeditsonalaptop" (or an organization/place by which I am employed)? Additionally, it would be "a cross-namespace redirect out of article space", "a novel or very obscure synonym" and "an improbable [typo] or [misnomer]" (not to mention "offensive or abusive"). Eunice Penix is the person's legal name, jax is not my legal name nor nickname recognized in society. Hundreds of musicians have redirects pointing to the Wikipedia page of their band, cases in point, Chris Kael, Jeff Worley and Maria Brink. Should those redirects be purged as well, just because the musicians are not notable?

I was referring to the neutrality of the redirect, not the neutrality of this discussion when I made my statements. "Neutrality of redirects" details this. Additionally, the AfD is to be taken in the context of Wikipedia policy, not simply votes. Also, can you name ONE reason under "Reasons for deleting" at "WP:R" for deleting the article?--Jax 0677 (talk) 03:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, Penix isn't a "major politician" anywhere, so that's kind of a weak analogy. She was never the mayor, no matter how many times you (and others) screw it up and call her mayor. She was a pro temp. There she was never elected to be a mayor. She was appointed, by her other council members, to temporarily act as a mayor for functions. Every year, they appoint someone different. Why? Because there was no mayor. Heck, even being a council member is a part-time job. Second, it doesn't matter how many sources use "jaxeditsonalaptop". Someone COULD use it as a search term. Despite that possibility, creating a redirect for that wouldn't make much more sense. Third, you've used this redirect as an end run. You copied and pasted the article, in its entirety, into the Dade City article, giving her 3 paragraphs about her bio and policitcal positions, while not even talking about the other members. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - First, Penix is one of the top ranking politicians in Dade City, FL, otherwise, her name wouldn't be listed on their wikipedia site. The Indiana state legislators are also part time, but this does not make them non-notable. Second, posting a redirect about me would involve WP:OUTING, and no one would find it "useful" (if I am mistaken, please let me know, as you admitted that you wouldn't find it useful). It would make a lot less sense to have a redirect to my user page, especially given all that I mentioned before. Third, One Direction has a biography section for its members, thererfore, Dade City could too if the Government section were formatted correctly, WP:BRD.--Jax 0677 (talk) 08:38, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, anyone who bothered to read the WP:POLITICIAN guideline (which you must not have done) would know that a state level officeholder like that is considered notable, regardless of part-time status. This makes your example ridiculous. The second "point" you made about outing is simply silly. Apparently telling you just how asinine the alleged "point" is can't be done, so I'll leave that to your imagination. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's enough, from this point on, everyone should stop commenting on other contributors and instead focus on the editorial content of the dispute. Dreadstar ☥ 19:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being mentioned in the infobox of a Wikipedia article is not proof of notability. Besides which, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Stalwart111 13:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - I understand "WP:WINARS". IMO, per the AfD, Penix was mentioned in enough reliable articles to be notable for a redirect. If she was mayor pro-tem (not pro-temp), then she was the highest ranking official in Dade City during her term. I ask again, since redirects are cheap, which of the TEN terms of "Reasons for deleting" is met here? IMO, in this case, a redirect is better than a red link.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Sure, Redirect if people really think there is value, but a Merge based on the fact that she was "mentioned" in another article is not right, but that's what happened. Stalwart111 21:33, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jax, Mayor pro tem is not the highest position in Dade City government, the Mayor is. I don't know where you keep getting such nonesense. Ms. Penix and the newest commissioner are the only ones of the current five not to have ever been the Mayor, making her less notable than three of the other four commissioners. However, even being the Mayor is not that big a deal, the mayor is also a commissioner, they get the same vote as the others commissioners, the difference is that the Mayor runs the meeting. The Mayor pro tem runs the meetings whenever the Mayor is absent. I don’t think Ms. Penix ever actually ran a commission meeting, making her Mayor pro tem position essentially an honorary one. Tupelo the typo fixer (talk) 17:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is EXACTLY the kind of wrongheaded thinking on Jax's part that this closure inspires. This editor has taken the inproperly worded closue as some sort of evidence that she was not found to be non-notable. He takes this as a determination that she was notable enough to avoid deletion and should be merged, creating a new issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:32, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse article was deleted within process and then the closer created a brief redirect and forgot to mention the deletion in the closure, now DRV? The redirect is reasonable considering the circumstances (former mayor and city commissioner of a small town, wasn't a unanimous delete AFD, article been in the project for nearly two years), and if the article gets recreated somehow without meeting the concerns of the AFD, a full protection should do until the subject is shown to meet notability guidelines. Secret ^account 06:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the editor cut and pasted the entire article into the Dade City article, creating an WP:UNDUE issue, especially since no other office holder is in the article, just 3 paragrapghs about her life and political positions......and this redirect makes it so that the article really wasn't deleted, just put on another page. So now we just shift to a new article to debate the same stuff. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which is obviously not okay. The contention here is that it might have been closed as straight Delete instead of Redirect. But Merge was certainly not an option which cut-paste dumping it into the other article amounts to. That "merge" was fairly bad faith. Your removal was entirely appropriate in my opinion. Stalwart111 05:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There is not a perfect consensus in the AfD with regard to the redirect, more so in view of the oft-imprecise way "delete" is used in discussions as inclusive of delete-with-redirect. I notice at least one well-respected, policy-aware and frequent AfD participant uses a "delete" !vote without discussing pro- or con- regarding the redirect itself, and whose rationale only touches on the questions of evidence and policy that determine whether the article itself should be deleted, *not* whether a redirect after would be appropriate. And so, since AfD is not a vote, it would be reasonable (and in fact, nearly required, since, and I repeat, AfD is not a vote) to discount, in part or in full, any weight that !vote received with regard to redirection. This is a common issue, closing between delete and delete-with-redirect is a common and nuanced task of the world of closing AfDs, and requires, in my experience, wide closer discretion. In this case, I believe the close is solidly within those bounds, no matter my own feelings on it. --j⚛e decker ^talk 16:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- the consensus was to delete, the article was deleted. What happens after that is editorial judgment. I don't see a problem here. Reyk _YO! 07:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, but closing statement should be amended to "delete and redirect" or "delete; I am redirecting as a normal editor" for clarity. Skimming the history of the deleted article, all major additions appear to have been made by User:Jax 0677, so the merger to Dade City, Florida has no WP:Copying within Wikipedia issues. Flatscan (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.