Template:Cute news – Consensus is to relist the RfD for a more serious discussion in which it should be examined whether this redirect from a misspelling is useful. Sandstein 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Cute news (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) This redirect should not have been deleted, or speedily deleted again, because the "reasons" given in the deletion discussion appear to be sarcastic and joking. No actual policy or guidelines were cited in the deletion discussion. This is a useful template redirect (per WP:RFD#KEEP) for a common misspelling. If someone objects to the existence of typos like this in articles, a bot can and should simply replace these transclusions with the correctly spelled target of the redirect. When I created this redirect, I included ((R from misspelling)), whose template documentation clearly states: Use this rcat template in any namespace. Redirects like this are used over 100 times in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Just a bit of information here: No actual policy or guidelines were cited in the deletion discussion is the norm at RfD, because the guidelines contradict what participants actually think (IMO the guidelines are right, but not many people care). The jokes were mostly opinions with no explanation. I think JPxG's argument was just a joke and he didn't want to actually keep it, but I'm not sure. FWIW, my comment was just a comment and not a !vote, but I trending towards keep if anything. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I do typo "cite" as "cute" sometimes, but it wasn't a particularly strongly-held opinion (is it really that much of a tragedy if, every once in a while, someone typoes a template invocation and has to go back and fix it?) jp×g 01:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I feel like I'm in some Alice in Wonderland world here. Nobody follows the guidelines? Is this yet another joke? I haven't found another venue within en.WP that says things like that in seriousness, so I'm guessing that it is. In any event, here's a request based on actual reasoning from WP:RFD#KEEP: Editors, including me, a template editor with more than ten years of editing experience, find this redirect useful. ((R from misspelling)) exists because editors make mistakes and find redirects from misspellings useful. Thanks in advance for restoring this redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Sadly, it isn't a joke. Often RfD seems like a venue where no sense is followed, immature editors are attracted to and trigger !vote delete with little thought. You go back and look through 2010 RfDs, and the results of discussions are much different. When people do reference the guidelines, they often do it mistakenly, failing to acknowledge RHARMFUL and K5 (and often K4). I've been frequenting RfD for most of the past year and a half, and I'd be interested to see my !vote/result percentage. 60% maybe? A lot of keep !votes and delete results. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I've never done a DRV before, despite more than ten years of editing at WP. Is there a way to get a speedy restoration so that editors making this typo do not unintenionally violate WP:REDNOT, a guideline? Should I expect any of the above commenters to actually comment in support of or in objection to this DRV request? This process seems as strange as your description of RFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I was just commenting to provide background, other editors will !vote to endorse or overturn the closure. Getting a speedy restoration in this scenario is pretty much impossible considering the !vote balance in the discussion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I guess that all I can hope is that a reasonable admin will look at the quality of the !votes, the lack of supporting guidelines there, and the multiple guidelines cited here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] That would result in many, many, many RfD results being overturned. Anyhow, relitigating the RfD in a DRV is generally bad. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] What? The top of this page literally says Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. Maybe I miss your meaning. That seems to be happening to me on multiple pages today. I need to take a break. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Relitigating the arguments of a deletion discussion. Sorry for the confusion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 03:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: I !voted to delete in the RfD, not as a joke, but because I didn't realize it was a redirect from a typo, so I didn't see the usefulness. That was my mistake. Clearly, it's a plausible typo and some editors find it useful. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Relist or overturn since the original had enough joke responses that you can't really find a consensus either way. It might have made sense to have relisted it, tagged those who notvoted, with a relist message asking for serious responses. That said, I don't really find fault with anyone's actions here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Relist/Overturn. Users are often apt to quickly vote in these sorts of RFDs to make quips and puns without fully considering all the facts. It's definitely unclear how seriously participants took the RFD, since only Ivanvector gave an actual, grounded reason to delete that took into account the typo. That being said, it's hard to fault the closer given how the !votes split and WP:RFD#D5 technically does apply to the literal meaning of the redirect. Given the concerns raised here, it would be good to relist and tag participants so a cost-benefit analysis of having such an ((R from typo)) can be debated. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] The jokey !votes should be treated the same as plain votes with no rationale would be – because they are genuine opinions supplemented by humour, not just full-on jokes. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per Ivanvector's squirrel in the original discussion. There were 5 delete declarations and 1 keep declaration. The keep declaration did not have a valid rationale while one of the delete declarations did, so the closer acted correctly in closing the discussion as delete. To close a discussion with such a clear majority for deletion as a keep, there must be an exceptionally strong argument for keep. There wasn't. DrKay (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I think we're looking at a case where the close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was Wednesbury unreasonable. Contributors to the discussion were enjoying a moment of levity and merriment to such an extent that they failed to read and understand the reasoning in front of them. On the rare occasions where this happens, DRV can either faint-heartedly relist for further discussion, or else boldly and decisively step in to resolve the problem. I would prefer the latter outcome. But in this it is very unfair to allow any criticism of the closer, express or implied. DRV almost always finds that closers should do what the consensus tells them to do even if the consensus appears, to the closer, to be wrong; this close was exactly what we would expect. For this reason I would wish to avoid the word "overturn". Can we say that DRV thanks the closer for acting as we have always asked them to act, but intervenes to alter the close because it's to the benefit of the encyclopaedia to do so?—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Vacate/relist Undelete this and just start a new discussion from scratch with a clear link to this discussion/explanation this isn't a joke, it's rare that discussions themselves are defective but I agree with S Marshall here. ("Overturn" doesn't necessarily mean a closer did anything wrong, either, but I understand the implication. This was properly closed.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] That the discussion was defective doesn't mean it was wrong. If we're to undelete this, relist it for a serious discussion so we can delete it properly. The misplaced arguments above - that this is a plausible typo (it's not, though ((cute bews)) might be) and that ((R from typo)) is common in the template namespace (it's not; almost all uses are to misspellings, not typos, and there's only two other misplaced-fingers typos, ~~one~~both currently at RFD) - are easily rebuttable. —Cryptic 11:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Overturn: There was a failure of process here, and it occurred at the start. Whilst the RfD was filed at 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC) by Dudhhr (talk · contribs) they were unable to carry out WP:RFD#HOWTO step I, because the redir was protected. Instead, Dudhhr did the next-best thing: they created Template talk:Cute news with a protected-edit request to carry out the appropriate tagging. Two days later, Xaosflux (talk · contribs) responded to that request and lifted that prot, and the content of that talk page was ultimately: == Edit request to complete RfD nomination == ((Edit protected\|Template:Cute news\|answered=yes)) [[Template:Cute news]] has been listed at Redirects for discussion ([[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news\|nomination]]), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add: <code><nowiki>((subst:rfd\|showontransclusion=1\|content= </nowiki></code> to the top of the page and <code><nowiki>))</nowiki></code> to the bottom to complete the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Xfd edit protected -->[[User:Dudhhr\|Dudhhr]] ([[User talk:Dudhhr\|talk]]) 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC) :((not done)) however ((ping\|Dudhhr)) I've removed the multiple protections. — [[User:Xaosflux\|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux\|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC) ((ping\|Xaosflux)) Sorry, it was automatically done by Twinkle when I RfD'd this page [[User:Dudhhr\|Dudhhr]] ([[User talk:Dudhhr\|talk]]) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC) Despite this, the redir never got tagged for RfD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - of the comments that were not obviously intended to be humorous, there were two deletes (nominator and myself) both arguing that a misspelling template redirect with only three extant transclusions (really only one actual misspelling, the other two were copies of the first) does not indicate a plausible error, versus one keep (User:J947) referring to frequent use (WP:RFD#K5, though it cannot currently be verified because the new pageviews tool cannot process deleted pages). Jonesey95's assertion upon recreating the page ("create template for common typo") is already refuted by the deletion discussion (a single good-faith typo is a very long way from "common"), so WP:G4 most certainly applies to the recreation, and they ought to earn a ((whale)) for trying to recreate it on the same day that it was deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] AFAICR there were 150-odd pageviews, if that is any help. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Comment - Well, that answers vague questions I had about why there are sometimes frivolous comments at RFD, which is that some of the regular editors there make frivolous comments. I personally prefer sarcastic comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] I've often said RFD is a silly place. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse the arguments aren't joking, it appears some just took the page as unworthy of more serious commentary. Having ((Cute news)) in the wikitext of a page is both confusing and just ridiculous. If someone makes a typo accidentally, they should be prompted to that (or it added into a tracking cat for someone else to fix) so that the wikitext doesn't read nonsense. If someone wants to make redirects that prompt a bot to correct the typo (via automatic substitution) that's one thing, but the text shouldn't be redirected to the template. This was the argument made in the XFD (eg by Ivanvector). The redirect guideline is generally designed with article typos in mind, where it is indeed cheap to have a plausible typo redirect to another. It is not the same thing when applied to templates, where the redirect actually stays in the page source. DRV is not a place to relitigate the consensus of an XFD venue, but relisting may be an acceptable outcome. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. We don't need redirects from every possible misspelling, not least in template space. What possible value is there in this one? What's an editor who comes across ((cute news)) going to do? That's right, they're going to waste time looking up this template that they've never heard of before. What's next? ((cite mews))? ((cite ners))? ((cite nwqa))? ((bite news))? ((bite cook))? Why create unnecessary problems? Narky Blert (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Relist as per Redrose64's comment about the failure of process. I rarely say this, but the closing admin really should've known better. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Relist per Redrose64. The lack of a tag is grounds for an automatic relisting, as noted at WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. - Eureka Lott 20:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Vacate and Relist for various reasons, including frivolity and procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Vacate and renominate per Redrose64. I would likely have !voted to delete, but process was not correctly followed and the standard of the discussion was poor so the best thing is to nominate and discuss it properly. Given how poor most of the rationales were it will be best if a new discussion is started rather than continuing from what went before. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Relist as original nominator. It was an honest mistake on my end and I believe it should be relisted to generate a clearer consensus without any semi-sarcastic !votes. Dudhhr (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply] Vacate for the reasons given by User:S Marshall and relist to come to a proper and perhaps less frivolous outocme. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Cute news – Consensus is to relist the RfD for a more serious discussion in which it should be examined whether this redirect from a misspelling is useful. Sandstein 19:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This redirect should not have been deleted, or speedily deleted again, because the "reasons" given in the deletion discussion appear to be sarcastic and joking. No actual policy or guidelines were cited in the deletion discussion. This is a useful template redirect (per WP:RFD#KEEP) for a common misspelling. If someone objects to the existence of typos like this in articles, a bot can and should simply replace these transclusions with the correctly spelled target of the redirect.

When I created this redirect, I included ((R from misspelling)), whose template documentation clearly states: Use this rcat template in any namespace. Redirects like this are used over 100 times in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of information here: No actual policy or guidelines were cited in the deletion discussion is the norm at RfD, because the guidelines contradict what participants actually think (IMO the guidelines are right, but not many people care). The jokes were mostly opinions with no explanation. I think JPxG's argument was just a joke and he didn't want to actually keep it, but I'm not sure. FWIW, my comment was just a comment and not a !vote, but I trending towards keep if anything. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 01:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I do typo "cite" as "cute" sometimes, but it wasn't a particularly strongly-held opinion (is it really that much of a tragedy if, every once in a while, someone typoes a template invocation and has to go back and fix it?) jp×g 01:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - I feel like I'm in some Alice in Wonderland world here. Nobody follows the guidelines? Is this yet another joke? I haven't found another venue within en.WP that says things like that in seriousness, so I'm guessing that it is. In any event, here's a request based on actual reasoning from WP:RFD#KEEP: Editors, including me, a template editor with more than ten years of editing experience, find this redirect useful. ((R from misspelling)) exists because editors make mistakes and find redirects from misspellings useful. Thanks in advance for restoring this redirect. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sadly, it isn't a joke. Often RfD seems like a venue where no sense is followed, immature editors are attracted to and trigger !vote delete with little thought. You go back and look through 2010 RfDs, and the results of discussions are much different. When people do reference the guidelines, they often do it mistakenly, failing to acknowledge RHARMFUL and K5 (and often K4). I've been frequenting RfD for most of the past year and a half, and I'd be interested to see my !vote/result percentage. 60% maybe? A lot of keep !votes and delete results. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've never done a DRV before, despite more than ten years of editing at WP. Is there a way to get a speedy restoration so that editors making this typo do not unintenionally violate WP:REDNOT, a guideline? Should I expect any of the above commenters to actually comment in support of or in objection to this DRV request? This process seems as strange as your description of RFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I was just commenting to provide background, other editors will !vote to endorse or overturn the closure. Getting a speedy restoration in this scenario is pretty much impossible considering the !vote balance in the discussion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        I guess that all I can hope is that a reasonable admin will look at the quality of the !votes, the lack of supporting guidelines there, and the multiple guidelines cited here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        That would result in many, many, many RfD results being overturned. Anyhow, relitigating the RfD in a DRV is generally bad. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 02:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        What? The top of this page literally says Deletion review (DRV) is for reviewing speedy deletions and outcomes of deletion discussions. Maybe I miss your meaning. That seems to be happening to me on multiple pages today. I need to take a break. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Relitigating the arguments of a deletion discussion. Sorry for the confusion. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 03:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: I !voted to delete in the RfD, not as a joke, but because I didn't realize it was a redirect from a typo, so I didn't see the usefulness. That was my mistake. Clearly, it's a plausible typo and some editors find it useful. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or overturn since the original had enough joke responses that you can't really find a consensus either way. It might have made sense to have relisted it, tagged those who notvoted, with a relist message asking for serious responses. That said, I don't really find fault with anyone's actions here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist/Overturn. Users are often apt to quickly vote in these sorts of RFDs to make quips and puns without fully considering all the facts. It's definitely unclear how seriously participants took the RFD, since only Ivanvector gave an actual, grounded reason to delete that took into account the typo. That being said, it's hard to fault the closer given how the !votes split and WP:RFD#D5 technically does apply to the literal meaning of the redirect. Given the concerns raised here, it would be good to relist and tag participants so a cost-benefit analysis of having such an ((R from typo)) can be debated. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 04:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The jokey !votes should be treated the same as plain votes with no rationale would be – because they are genuine opinions supplemented by humour, not just full-on jokes. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 05:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Ivanvector's squirrel in the original discussion. There were 5 delete declarations and 1 keep declaration. The keep declaration did not have a valid rationale while one of the delete declarations did, so the closer acted correctly in closing the discussion as delete. To close a discussion with such a clear majority for deletion as a keep, there must be an exceptionally strong argument for keep. There wasn't. DrKay (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're looking at a case where the close was in accordance with the consensus, but the consensus was Wednesbury unreasonable. Contributors to the discussion were enjoying a moment of levity and merriment to such an extent that they failed to read and understand the reasoning in front of them. On the rare occasions where this happens, DRV can either faint-heartedly relist for further discussion, or else boldly and decisively step in to resolve the problem. I would prefer the latter outcome. But in this it is very unfair to allow any criticism of the closer, express or implied. DRV almost always finds that closers should do what the consensus tells them to do even if the consensus appears, to the closer, to be wrong; this close was exactly what we would expect. For this reason I would wish to avoid the word "overturn". Can we say that DRV thanks the closer for acting as we have always asked them to act, but intervenes to alter the close because it's to the benefit of the encyclopaedia to do so?—S Marshall T/C 10:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate/relist Undelete this and just start a new discussion from scratch with a clear link to this discussion/explanation this isn't a joke, it's rare that discussions themselves are defective but I agree with S Marshall here. ("Overturn" doesn't necessarily mean a closer did anything wrong, either, but I understand the implication. This was properly closed.) SportingFlyer T·C 10:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That the discussion was defective doesn't mean it was wrong. If we're to undelete this, relist it for a serious discussion so we can delete it properly. The misplaced arguments above - that this is a plausible typo (it's not, though ((cute bews)) might be) and that ((R from typo)) is common in the template namespace (it's not; almost all uses are to misspellings, not typos, and there's only two other misplaced-fingers typos, ~~one~~both currently at RFD) - are easily rebuttable. —Cryptic 11:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn: There was a failure of process here, and it occurred at the start. Whilst the RfD was filed at 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC) by Dudhhr (talk · contribs) they were unable to carry out WP:RFD#HOWTO step I, because the redir was protected. Instead, Dudhhr did the next-best thing: they created Template talk:Cute news with a protected-edit request to carry out the appropriate tagging. Two days later, Xaosflux (talk · contribs) responded to that request and lifted that prot, and the content of that talk page was ultimately:

== Edit request to complete RfD nomination ==

((Edit protected|Template:Cute news|answered=yes))
[[Template:Cute news]] has been listed at Redirects for discussion ([[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 21#Template:Cute news|nomination]]), but was protected so could not be tagged. Please add:

<code><nowiki>((subst:rfd|showontransclusion=1|content=
</nowiki></code>

to the top of the page and <code><nowiki>))</nowiki></code> to the bottom to complete the nomination. Thank you. <!-- Template:Xfd edit protected -->[[User:Dudhhr|Dudhhr]] ([[User talk:Dudhhr|talk]]) 17:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
:((not done)) however ((ping|Dudhhr)) I've removed the multiple protections. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
((ping|Xaosflux)) Sorry, it was automatically done by Twinkle when I RfD'd this page [[User:Dudhhr|Dudhhr]] ([[User talk:Dudhhr|talk]]) 17:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Despite this, the redir never got tagged for RfD. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 14:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - of the comments that were not obviously intended to be humorous, there were two deletes (nominator and myself) both arguing that a misspelling template redirect with only three extant transclusions (really only one actual misspelling, the other two were copies of the first) does not indicate a plausible error, versus one keep (User:J947) referring to frequent use (WP:RFD#K5, though it cannot currently be verified because the new pageviews tool cannot process deleted pages). Jonesey95's assertion upon recreating the page ("create template for common typo") is already refuted by the deletion discussion (a single good-faith typo is a very long way from "common"), so WP:G4 most certainly applies to the recreation, and they ought to earn a ((whale)) for trying to recreate it on the same day that it was deleted. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- AFAICR there were 150-odd pageviews, if that is any help. — J947 ‡ ^{message ⁓ edits} 22:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, that answers vague questions I had about why there are sometimes frivolous comments at RFD, which is that some of the regular editors there make frivolous comments. I personally prefer sarcastic comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've often said RFD is a silly place. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 22:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the arguments aren't joking, it appears some just took the page as unworthy of more serious commentary. Having ((Cute news)) in the wikitext of a page is both confusing and just ridiculous. If someone makes a typo accidentally, they should be prompted to that (or it added into a tracking cat for someone else to fix) so that the wikitext doesn't read nonsense. If someone wants to make redirects that prompt a bot to correct the typo (via automatic substitution) that's one thing, but the text shouldn't be redirected to the template. This was the argument made in the XFD (eg by Ivanvector). The redirect guideline is generally designed with article typos in mind, where it is indeed cheap to have a plausible typo redirect to another. It is not the same thing when applied to templates, where the redirect actually stays in the page source. DRV is not a place to relitigate the consensus of an XFD venue, but relisting may be an acceptable outcome. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. We don't need redirects from every possible misspelling, not least in template space. What possible value is there in this one? What's an editor who comes across ((cute news)) going to do? That's right, they're going to waste time looking up this template that they've never heard of before. What's next? ((cite mews))? ((cite ners))? ((cite nwqa))? ((bite news))? ((bite cook))? Why create unnecessary problems? Narky Blert (talk) 16:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist as per Redrose64's comment about the failure of process. I rarely say this, but the closing admin really should've known better. Iaritmioawp (talk) 17:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Redrose64. The lack of a tag is grounds for an automatic relisting, as noted at WP:PROCEDURALCLOSE. - Eureka Lott 20:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate and Relist for various reasons, including frivolity and procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate and renominate per Redrose64. I would likely have !voted to delete, but process was not correctly followed and the standard of the discussion was poor so the best thing is to nominate and discuss it properly. Given how poor most of the rationales were it will be best if a new discussion is started rather than continuing from what went before. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Relist as original nominator. It was an honest mistake on my end and I believe it should be relisted to generate a clearer consensus without any semi-sarcastic !votes. Dudhhr (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vacate for the reasons given by User:S Marshall and relist to come to a proper and perhaps less frivolous outocme. Stifle (talk) 13:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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