< January 4	Deletion review archives: 2009 January	January 6 >

5 January 2009

Userbox – Continued deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Userbox (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` Note: - XfD history: RfD1 (2 March 2006 delete), DRV1 (23 April 2006 restore), RfD2 (9 May 2006 delete), DRV2 (6 August 2006 Make a redlink), DRV3 (25 March 2008 overturn G4), AfD1 (4 May 2008 delete) -- Suntag ☼ 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] If left alone as a redirect to WP:Userboxes it will be much easier for those unfamiliar with the project linking schema to find the page. As it currently serves no other apparent purpose, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason for it to not at least serve this function. Users in the past have also recommended this course of action. Other pages such as [1] perform functions similar to how this page would, yet they have not been similarly deleted. Could not resolve with the deleting Administrator. Resplendent (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion While the AFD discussion mainly focused on self-reference, it's also a fact that cross namespace redirects are a criterion for speedy deletion (contrary to hatnotes in existing articles). How do you suggest keeping this would follow the relevant rules and guidelines? - Mgm\|^(talk) 09:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Only Redirects to Talk:, File:, File talk:, MediaWiki:, MediaWiki talk:, Help talk:, Category talk:, Template talk:, Portal talk:, User:, or User talk spaces are candidates for speedy deletion. Redirects to templates, categories, or project space are discouraged but not deleted without comment. Protonk (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] To go through the sequence of consensus decisions (ignoring speedies and recreations for the moment), userbox was originally a redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes. It was deleted by RFD in May 2006. At DRV on March 25, 2008, it was undeleted for an article to be created on the subject. Note that that deletion review did not overturn the decision to delete the redirect, but permitted the page to be unsalted for an article on userboxes. However, this article was deleted on May 9 after an AFD. As such, there is consensus that neither an article nor a redirect should exist at the title, and (at this time) no indication of why that consensus should be changed. I therefore endorse the deletion and recommend reprotection for now. I have also nominated community portal for RFD. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse DRV2, which Xoloz closed on 6 August 2006 as "closing (make redlink)." The DRV2 discussion was open from 1 August to 6 August 2006 and the DRV2 discussion could not have been closed any other way. Nothing has been presented to overcome the reasons given in DRV2 for upholding the RfD2. In particular, Rjd0060's 9 May 2008 close of AfD1 drew no conclusions regarding DRV2. -- Suntag ☼ 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Between Google books, Google news, and Google scholar, there seems to be plenty of reliable source material for an editor willing to write generally about user box rather than trying to focus the topic on a particular Wiki's usage of userboxes. P.S., es.wikipedia.org has a userbox article. -- Suntag ☼ 17:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per stifle. I see no reason to allow recreation of this XNR when people can just type WP:userbox instead. XNRs should be avoided if at all possible. VegaDark (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion CNRs are bad and the prior RFD is correct. MBisanz ^talk 15:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion of course. Userboxes are still very much deprecated, as are cross-namespace redirects. We hashed this out long ago and shouldn't have to suffer the same old tired arguments in favor of either. --TS 16:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Userbox – Continued deletion endorsed – Eluchil404 (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: - XfD history: RfD1 (2 March 2006 delete), DRV1 (23 April 2006 restore), RfD2 (9 May 2006 delete), DRV2 (6 August 2006 Make a redlink), DRV3 (25 March 2008 overturn G4), AfD1 (4 May 2008 delete) -- Suntag ☼ 17:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If left alone as a redirect to WP:Userboxes it will be much easier for those unfamiliar with the project linking schema to find the page. As it currently serves no other apparent purpose, there doesn't seem to be any logical reason for it to not at least serve this function. Users in the past have also recommended this course of action. Other pages such as [1] perform functions similar to how this page would, yet they have not been similarly deleted. Could not resolve with the deleting Administrator. Resplendent (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion While the AFD discussion mainly focused on self-reference, it's also a fact that cross namespace redirects are a criterion for speedy deletion (contrary to hatnotes in existing articles). How do you suggest keeping this would follow the relevant rules and guidelines? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Only Redirects to Talk:, File:, File talk:, MediaWiki:, MediaWiki talk:, Help talk:, Category talk:, Template talk:, Portal talk:, User:, or User talk spaces are candidates for speedy deletion. Redirects to templates, categories, or project space are discouraged but not deleted without comment. Protonk (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To go through the sequence of consensus decisions (ignoring speedies and recreations for the moment), userbox was originally a redirect to Wikipedia:Userboxes. It was deleted by RFD in May 2006. At DRV on March 25, 2008, it was undeleted for an article to be created on the subject. Note that that deletion review did not overturn the decision to delete the redirect, but permitted the page to be unsalted for an article on userboxes. However, this article was deleted on May 9 after an AFD. As such, there is consensus that neither an article nor a redirect should exist at the title, and (at this time) no indication of why that consensus should be changed. I therefore endorse the deletion and recommend reprotection for now. I have also nominated community portal for RFD. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse DRV2, which Xoloz closed on 6 August 2006 as "closing (make redlink)." The DRV2 discussion was open from 1 August to 6 August 2006 and the DRV2 discussion could not have been closed any other way. Nothing has been presented to overcome the reasons given in DRV2 for upholding the RfD2. In particular, Rjd0060's 9 May 2008 close of AfD1 drew no conclusions regarding DRV2. -- Suntag ☼ 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Between Google books, Google news, and Google scholar, there seems to be plenty of reliable source material for an editor willing to write generally about user box rather than trying to focus the topic on a particular Wiki's usage of userboxes. P.S., es.wikipedia.org has a userbox article. -- Suntag ☼ 17:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per stifle. I see no reason to allow recreation of this XNR when people can just type WP:userbox instead. XNRs should be avoided if at all possible. VegaDark (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion CNRs are bad and the prior RFD is correct. MBisanz ^talk 15:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion of course. Userboxes are still very much deprecated, as are cross-namespace redirects. We hashed this out long ago and shouldn't have to suffer the same old tired arguments in favor of either. --TS 16:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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