Wikipedia talk:Deletion reform/Proposals/Speedy redirect

I see one problem already. The proposal says: "If an article has been speedily redirected, and the redirect is replaced by content substantially identical to what was there before the redirect, it may be speedily deleted." This means that if an article that might or might not pass VfD is redirected, and the creator or soemoen esle wants to argue that it should be kept, not redirected, reverting the redir makes it subject to speedy deletion? I don't think this is a good idea. Worse, this allows any two users (or one user with a sockpuppet) to game the system to speedy delete anything they want: 1) User Alpha puts Foo on Vfd; 2) User Beta speedy redirects it to Bar; 3) user Alpha (or maybe better user gamma) reverts the redir; 4) user Beta tags it for speedy deletion. ot that there is nothing in the proposal to stop this from happenign to any page, and if user Beta is an admin, or finds one who does the deletion, that is it unless it goes to VfU. DES ^(talk) 19:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I can take or leave the second safeguard myself, but I thought it would reassure those who feel that vandals are slavering at our doors to include nonsense content by any means possible. I will recast, and add a note.

I do intend the substantially identical to be taken strictly. That's why I took the wording from CSD. Septentrionalis 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the rule to make your scenario an abuse of CSD. People who will dare abuse CSD to delete articles can do that now. I'm sure the wording can be improved; please do.

Also i have seen people edit articles on VfD into redirs as things stand, on the grounds that if the relevant info is already at the target, it isn't a "merge". So perhaps this entire proposal is not needed? DES ^(talk) 19:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been tempted to do that myself, but have been deterred. But it would help simply to take out the word "merge". Septentrionalis 19:20, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked at this again, nd I think the real problem is "Any editor may close a VfD discussion..." It doesn't say there needs to be consensus to redir, and it doesn't say there needs to be any delay, and the name "speedy" implies otherwise. So if User Alpha puts a page on VfD, can uweer Beta forthwith clsoe the VfD as a peedy Redir? Is this then supposed to be considered enforcable? Will this prevent people who might have argued on the VfD page for a Keep from doing so?. This needs more thought. DES ^(talk) 19:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want this to need a consensus for redirect. Those can be closed under present policy. A consensus to redirect is a consensus to keep, with instruction to the closer.

If A puts something on VfD and B speedy redirects it, that's fine; a consensus to take out the redirect can be expressed on the talk page. But you suggest further fizes, thanks. Septentrionalis 19:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see your idea. But if the VfD shows an incipient consensus to keep (i.e. if closed at the moment it would be closed as a consensus to keep, not as no consensus), it should not be closed as a speedy redir even if the people voting to keep have not discussed the merits of redirection. Your current rule implies that if people are voting keep and haven't mentioned resons not to redir, a speedy redir is fine. DES ^(talk) 20:03, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]