- Green Gully Reserve (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Firstly, I wanted a correct redirect, so I posted at RfD but for some bizarre reason admin Thryduulf closed my redirect for discussion and wouldn't allow anyone else to take part in that, so we are now back here, simply because I wanted Green Gully Reserve redirected to the right place. Now to begin with, Green Gully Reserve mainly and largely is a Park. There is a large park area, with grounds for people to walk through, ride a bike. There is a stadium in the park area, with other football patches, tennis and an enclosed dog area. So why o why would you redirect a whole park, all these other venues to a football club. Simply being, this was a bad close and WP:COMMONSENSE was lacked from multiple people here at the AfD. I would prefer the article to be kept, in my view there is just enough in the citations to warrant an article. However the next logical step would be to redirect to Keilor Downs, Victoria and merge there. That was not done. This AfD really needed more participation from other souls. To me, there were a number of bad actions at this AfD which still need to be rectified. Hence why we are here. Govvy (talk) 09:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse There was consensus that the venue did not have standalone notability but there was not consensus to delete, so redirect is the correct outcome. A retargeting discussion can take place at WP:RFD. I saw an RFD discussion was started and procedurally closed on this article, but it could easily be restarted after this DRV is closed, if it is specifically brought up as a retargeting discussion. Frank Anchor 12:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment as RFD closer. I procedurally closed the RfD (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15#Green Gully Reserve) because the nomination rationale was almost entirely about contesting the AfD close, and the follow-up to my first comment made this motivation seem clearer. The closure was without prejudice to either a deletion review challenge of the AfD close or to an RfD nomination that was not based on challenging the AfD, as I explained on my talk page. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Govvy, it's genuinely unclear from your statements both here and at the RFD whether you're primarily disputing whether this title should be a redirect, or merely where it should redirect to. In the latter case, the AFD doesn't preclude either a retargeting RFD or merging some of its content to its target, just that it shouldn't exist as a stand-alone article; and while some griping at an RFD might be tolerated, Thryduulf's closure of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 15#Green Gully Reserve was reasonable because it looked like you were primarily arguing for the article's restoration. —Cryptic 16:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse:
- Comment - If the appellant wants Green Gully Reserve directs to somewhere else, they should say where, and file a new RFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment Well, there is a DRV tag at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Gully Reserve, which I closed, so even though your explanation here is about a RFD discussion are you contesting the AFD closure as well? If not, then the DRV tag should be put on the RFD discussion instead. Sorry to be so bureaucratic, I just want to know if I'm involved in this. Liz Read! Talk! 20:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply @Liz: I simply wanted to redirect to Keilor Downs, Victoria. That's what I tried to explain on the RfD page before Thryduulf closed it. I still don't get wikipedia at times! :/ Govvy (talk) 20:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- When you've been here as long as I have you'll understand it even less! Thincat (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse AfD close as consensus was for a redirect. We don't need seven days here and a minimum of seven days at RfD so let's see if we can go on a bureaucracy diet. If nom is satisfied despite disagreeing with the close as redirect, let the RfD run to determine best target. If nom prefers a standalone article, let this run to establish whether the AfD was closed incorrectly. Star Mississippi 00:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments It's clear to me, those that endorse have not even bothered to read the original article, my reconstructed article, nor the AfD. If all those that endorse this, then I suggest to do an RfD to repoint Central Park to New York Yankees. Because that is what everyone has just an equivalent of. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Hyperbole isn't going to help your cause here @Govvy. That analogy is absurd. Please stop assuming bad faith just because you disagree with the outcome. Star Mississippi 12:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Star Mississippi: lol, you make me laugh, I am not assuming bad faith, I am assuming incompetence. Govvy (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments Okay let me try and keep this simple, what are people endorsing?? So the article should be about a park, but I was looking at WP:GEOLAND, I would assume the article should be covered by that. I am still confused, why GEOLAND and WP:GEONATURAL is ignored. The geography is ignored by other editors, the only one that posted such information was the nominator of the article, geography should be redirected to geography, not a football club. The closer shouldn't have followed consensus to be redirected to the football club. That is plan and simple. If you look at one source [1], you can see on the map provided on the source, what they call the dog area! That whole land is the upper part of Green Gully Reserve, that, they haven't put the lower part or all of the Green Gully Reserve area in the map. How large is the Green Gully Reserve area, well, again, what are people endorsing? This GEOFEAT be redirected too a football club???? Govvy (talk) 10:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two separate questions here:
- Should Green Gully Reserve be an article or a redirect?
- If it is a redirect, what should the target be?
- In pretty much every single one of your statements you have not made it clear to anybody else which question you are addressing.
- If you want to address the first question then you need to state that clearly here and explain here why you think the AfD process was flawed. Leave out all the comments about the target of the redirect as that is not relevant.
- If you want to address the second question then you should state that clearly here. After this discussion is closed you should start a new discussion at RfD that address only what you think the target of the redirect should be and why, leave out everything to do with the AfD as that's irrelevant to the discussion.
- Unless you do one of these things then people are going to continue not understanding you and you (and likely others) will just get more frustrated. Thryduulf (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Pinging @Govvy in case you missed my comment immediately above. You need to take one of the above actions to clarify your intent if you want any kind of resolution. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|