Talk:AKFD/redirect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Talk:AKFD
Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

If you came here to vote on deletion of redirects, as discussed on VfD, there are NINE separate ones here for you to vote on. You can click here or scroll down to find them.

Certain redirects to Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' (now to anti-gay slogan) and to talk:AKFD have been nominated for deletion. To express your opinion, please add your name to the opinion poll below. You can read some of the arguments made for and against deletion below. If your reason for supporting or opposing deletion has not been listed, then add it, but please don't duplicate what is already here.

Contents

Reasons

See also: Revision as of 21:15, 16 Aug 2003 on this subject. Refactoring by Martin 22:01, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC), who voted for keeping many of these redirects

Many of the arguments for deletion are related to the search results for a search for "AIDS". See:

Arguments for deletion

Arguments against redirects that do not have the word "slogan" in them, ie AIDS Kills Fags Dead and AIDS kills fags dead

  • Make people think that this is an article expressing the POV of the slogan, rather than one which discusses the slogan in a neutral manner.
  • Cause offence (some think highly offensive)
  • Make Wikipedia look homophobic

The arguments above are discussed with respect to what title the article should have at Talk:AKFD/title and Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (slogans),

Arguments against having too many redirects:

  • Clutter up search results (for "AIDS", in particular, but other terms too)
  • Are annoying
  • Cause offence (some think highly offensive)
  • Make Wikipedia look homophobic
  • May incorrectly boost google PageRank.

Additional arguments:

  • Redirects are unused
  • Redirects are not useful (some qualify this by saying that AIDS Kills Fags Dead is useful, but not the rest)
  • AIDS kills fags dead should not be used in this form anyway.
  • These redirects are the result of a silly move/edit war.
  • Some of them were never used as the location of the article except for a very brief period

this isn't the vote - it's just a section for providing reasons

Google pagerank trolling, highly offensive redirects, negative impact on searching for any word in title, etc.) Daniel Quinlan 08:27, Nov 17, 2003 (UTC)

Redirects are meant to be helpful, not to preserve every possible permutation of every possible English spelling including misspellings. Marshman 17:01, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Wikipedia now seems to be the main vehicle promoting this slogan. We don't "make the news". Secretlondon 18:50, Nov 22, 2003 (UTC)

Arguments for keeping

Counter-arguments against the arguments proposed above:

  • Since this article is related for AIDS, it is appropriate that it comes up in a search
  • The internal search results all have "slogan" placed appropriately, voiding this argument for deletion.
  • The external search results also have "slogan" placed appropriately, again voiding this argument.
  • The external search results do not show multiple results, as google merges them, so the argument that there are "too many" is void for external searches.
  • While internal search results do indeed show multiple results, this could be fixed: see meta:redirects and searching. In any case, the number of multiple results is not wildly excessive.
  • Judging the offensiveness of slogans to determine whether redirects should be deleted violates NPOV

Positive reasons to keep the redirects:

On a side note, Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' contains some of the history of the material in anti-gay slogan - but not all. the /page history might be one solution to this. Another might be to merge page histories (with caution). Martin 18:44, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Opinion poll

This poll started on 1 July 2003. This was once a vote, but is now just an informal poll. See below. This was once a vote, and then it became just an informal poll, and then it became something closer to a vote again. See below.

Please add your vote with ~~~, either for or against the deletion of each redirect.

The |time| marker indicates the gap of time between July and November 2003. Votes cast prior to July do not take into account the merge of the main article that took place in November. If you cast your vote in July, you may wish to recast it to reaffirm or withdraw your earlier opinion.

This one seems to have less support for deletion, both now and in July. Taking into account both months, just over half want this deleted. This rises to 75% in November, but is still a less clear consensus than the others I just deleted. It was also (I think) the original title of the article, which would seem some reason to keep this one more than the other ones. Angela 03:33, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • Now 67% vote for November and 52% overall since Jack added his vote. Angela 03:58, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is the redirect of the former location of the article. In July this was not an issue, as the article had not been merged with anti-gay slogan at that point. However, now that the merge has occurred without yet being reverted, this is now an issue.

See also miscellaneous comments, but not clear votes either way at Talk:AKFD/November 2003.

Already deleted

the two below were created in early November 2003 courtesy of a redirect-creation project and deleted by Angela Nov 2003, because there were 80% votes to delete at that time.


The four below were redirects to Talk:AKFD. They were (except the last) around in July, but nobody appeared to care. However, the issue of their existence was raised in November. After being listed here for five days with no opposition to their deletion, they were deleted.

These three were deleted on November 29th, having been on VfD for nearly two weeks. They all had near unanimous support for deletion in November, with the only opposing vote being made by JDR who had given no reason for this opposition. The total of the July and November votes were in all cases above 2/3 in favour of deletion, with 77% and 79% in favour of the first two. The July votes were given less weight as the nature of the issue had changed since the original article they were redirecting to no longer existed, except as a redirect itself. Note that JackLynch's vote was made after the deletion occured.

Voting procedure

Full discussion archived at Talk:AKFD/Voting rules.

  • It was debated whether to require a 2/3 majority, or have a simple majority. This debate took place after many votes were cast.
  • Tim Starling was unhappy at this, feeling that it ruined the chances of setting a useful precedent.
  • Martin suggested that a mere opinion poll might be helpful, so not to give up hope. Tim Starling concurred.
  • People who had previously expressed an opinion were contactedby Martin, and the vote was advertised in a few places, and this seemed satisfactorary.
  • Toby Bartels stated that "NPOV outranks votes" (because NPOV requires this article to be treated like others, regardless of people's opinions about the matters that it discusses).
  • Koyaanis Qatsi argued that the vote was not valid, saying "deleting these redirects ... is a violation of NPOV". He argued that certain wikipedia principles, such as NPOV, are "sacrosanct" and should not be democratically overruled.
  • Tim Starling disagreed - saying that policy was decided by consensus, and if the vote went against policy, then in some sense it is a vote on policy change. Also, "Everyone is interested in maintaining NPOV, but there is conflict over its interpretation".
  • Eloquence suggested deleting the redirects "'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan" and "AIDS Kills Fags Dead slogan" on July 6. Oliver P., Koyaanis Qatsi, and Martin asked for more time. Martin suggested giving it a month.

The July compromise

It's been a little while, and I think everyone's said what they want to. Would it be worth listing the least-supported redirect ('AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan) on VfD, copying across the votes to date, and taking it from there? The others all seems to have quite strong (if minority) support, but perhaps we can toss one redirect to the wolves to save the rest? ;-) Martin 12:36 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think this is the best way to go. --Daniel C. Boyer 16:42 27 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I've just contacted the three who voted against deletion (Optigan, KQ, and Oliver P) - I hope they'll be willing to accept one deletion as a compromise.

Anyway, I'll just wait to see what they say - if they've no objections to this compromise, then the deletion should proceed nice and smoothly. Here's hoping. Martin

Hello. Yes, go on, then. If that's the compromise, I'll agree to it. I have a sneaking suspicion that this is one of those thin end of the wedge things (or do I mean a slippery slope thing?) but if things start doing whatever they're supposed to do according to whatever metaphor it is that I'm thinking of, I'll think about it again then... -- Oliver P. 21:07, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC) (links added)

Thanks Oliver. I've updated my vote to reflect my support for this as a compromise option. Of course, I can make no promises... ;-) Martin

As well as Oliver, also contacted KQ and Optigan. Optigan did not respond. KQ said that his opinion had not changed: he still opposed deletion of any redirects. Martin 22:16, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've listed 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan on wikipedia:votes for deletion. This should reduce search engine clutter by one fifth, while keeping redirects that people have said they find useful in some way. I hope this will provide a resolution of sorts to this issue. Martin 22:32, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

  • 17:47, Aug 23, 2003 Delirium deleted "Talk:'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan" (talk page of deleted article (which was just a redirect to Talk:Slogan_'AIDS_Kills_Fags_Dead'))
  • 17:46, Aug 23, 2003 Delirium deleted "'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan" (deleting redirect as a compromise -- see Talk:AKFD/redirect -- listed on VfD 7 days)

New discussion

User talk:Martin suggests that the concord reached on VfD (after the November 16 listing) need not be respected unless the July vote is changed, and suggests that otherwise "people can keep re-listing articles for deletion (or undeletion) indefinately, in the hope of getting their way." He also suggests that those who voted at VfD for deleting redirects need to reregister their "apparent" votes in what he considers the "official place for such votes: namely Talk:AKFD/redirect". --Someone else

No: vote in the opinion poll that's already been set up - don't try to create a new one because you don't like the old one. Martin 18:27, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The pages and article structure are no longer the same. A new vote was held, and not followed. A new vote is thus necessary.
No it's not. Martin 18:34, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned (and I'm not alone in this), there was no "concord" on VfD. There was just a heck of a lot of confusion. A number of people expressed the general feeling that some stuff should be deleted (or, indeed, kept) without explicitly saying whether redirects were one of those things. That doesn't help us very much.
Where comments were definate, eg Jtdirl's comment of "delete this article and all its unnecessary redirects, then I've copied those across. But I'm not going to go around assuming that people who were more vague agree with either me, or with you.
Note that some people, both for and against deletion of these redirects, will not have bothered to re-express their vote when they've already made their position clear. Disenfranchising them would set a very bad precedent, in my opinion. Martin 18:34, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The articles they voted on are not the articles that exist now. They voted on redirects to "AIDS Kills Fags Dead", they didn't vote on redirects to "Gay hate speech". There's no vote "in progress": there was a previous vote that was acted on (and therefore must have ended.) No one is disenfranchised: all can vote. -- Someone else 18:37, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is the "opinion poll" now a "vote"? This page is far too complicated now. It was perfectly clear on VfD that You and Oliver wanted to keep everything, and the overwhelming majority wanted them gone. Please stop changing the rules to make your opinion prevail. - Someone else 18:48, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

No, it's still an opinion poll, just like the prior one was, I'm just using your terminology.
user:KF (oh, and Angela, it seems) agrees on the existence of confusion.
Me and Oliver P weren't alone in wanting at least some of the articles kept. Check the backlog.
You disenfranchise those, on both sides, who have grown bored with the issue. That would be a mistake, leaving decisions only to folks like you and me who keep debating long after everyone else has gone away. Martin 18:59, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I didn't say you were ALONE, I said you were not the prevailing opinion. And the debate would end if you'd accept the vote. -- Someone else 19:03, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
What took place on VfD was a scrum, not a vote. Martin 19:13, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It was a vote, and one where only the living voted, unlike what you've set up here, an election Chicago mayor Daley would be proud of. All his dead supporters could vote, too. -- Someone else 19:17, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Since you bring up real world politics, I'll remind you that most democracies have a vote every four years, not every four months. Where there are referundums, the practice of continually calling referendums until you get the "right" result is widely regarded as an abuse of the system. Not that this gets us anywhere.

Most legislative bodies have a vote every day. And votes for bills which have been rewritten have to be recast. The idea that a vote to keep "AIDS Kills Fags Dead" when it was an article should be counted as a vote to keep it now that it is a redirect should be a non-starter. -- Someone else 19:37, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Think through the consequences of that position: suppose an article is listed on VfD for four days, has a hundred votes to delete, and then someone comes along and corrects a few spelling errors. Should we ignore all the previously expressed opinions and start again?
I'm not arguing that opinions expressed in July need to be considered equal to opinions expressed now - I'm just arguing that they should not be ignored. That applies both to those who voted to delete, and those who voted to keep. Martin 20:26, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yet the vote you've set up counts votes for a substantively different matter (not a spelling change) as equal to votes which reflect current reality and article content. Votes by people who no longer participate and haven't seen where the content is now, and are not available to clarify what their vote would be in the current situation. You're simply hijacking those votes. -- Someone else 20:33, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Not true: I clearly distinguish between the two types of votes. It is up to individuals to decide how much weight to give July votes vis-a-vis November votes. I am certainly not demanding that they be treated equally. Many of them are still here, incidentally.
Note that most of the arguments for keeping or deleting these redirects haven't changed very much, so I don't think the situation is as wildly different as you suggest. Martin 20:59, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
You distinguish them temporally only, and minimize the differences in the articles now and five months ago. You suggest that old votes be tallied as reflecting in some way the current situation. That would be irregular in an election; and counting opinions from five months ago would be a bad basis for assessing what the result of a current opinion polls would be. -- Someone else 21:39, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Do you have a preference for talk:Slogan 'AKFD' over talk:AKFD? Martin 19:32, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Either would do for me. -- Someone else 19:37, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Good, good. Martin 19:40, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Martin, this is getting a tad confusing. It seems that we spend all the time voting on this issue. And everytime we seem to make a decision it is ignored and we start again. And again. And again. If we this time vote to delete these, can they please be deleted this time. And can we please have a vote on one page. At this stage these debate pages seem to be breeding like rabbits. Not alone, IMHO do we have a crazy number of redirects for a page with little credibility, we now seem to have a crazy number of pages about the redirects. FearÉIREANN 22:03, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Not to mention the subdivision into 9 separate votes on this page. You've missed voting in the last one, FÉ! -- Someone else 22:11, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I didn't structure this vote: According to talk:AKFD/Voting rules, Tim Starling did. I merely extended it as additional redirects came under consideration. Martin 23:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
He structured July's vote: you decided that a vote in November was a "continuation" of that one and not a new one. -- Someone else 23:57, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure what you think we decided previously that has been ignored? Back in July, we decided to delete the redirect 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' slogan, and it was deleted, as Oliver agreed to compromise on the redirect in question. On the matter of the other redirects, there was no decision either way, because a number of people voted to keep some or all of them. Since then, the issue has been periodically raised in discussion, quite strongly at times, but not got as far as another decision. The one time we did was with the two redirects that got an 80% vote for deletion, and Angela implemented that deletion.

I agree, it would be good to have the debate on deleting the redirects on one page: this page. That's what I said when this was re-listed on VfD this month. Unfortunately, a few people decided to ignore that suggestion, and instead expressed their views on VfD itself, or elsewhere, and often not particularly clearly, either. I continue to recommend that talk about the deletion of AKFD redirects should be located here on talk:AKFD/redirect, as I have done whenever the issue was raised. Martin 23:00, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Of course, the place to vote for deletion is logically the intuitively named "Votes for Deletion". Though we've done that already. -- Someone else 23:57, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)
No: when there's a more specific page, the more specific page takes precedence over VfD. That's half the point of /deletion pages. Martin 00:24, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Well, yes, I known that's your opinion, and I have no doubt you could whip up a policy page to support it. But it certainly isn't intuitive, and it certainly is not designed for ease of use. And hiding such discussions in subpages manages to make it very unlikely for people to even know such discussions are underway. -- Someone else 00:28, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I could throw boilerplate text on all the redirects, if that would help? Martin 00:52, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Actually Martin is correct. There are some debates that are simply too long for VfD and so are redirected to /delete pages from the VfD. But the whole point of the /delete link is to make it clear they are a branch off the VfD page (and also then to preserve an archive afterwards). /redirect makes it sound like it is just another lets talk around in circles for ages until we are all bored and nothing gets done page. It should be at a /delete page, and follow the same rules as the rest. A decision taken in 7 days, and like all other pages on the VfD page, taken by votes cast now, not months ago, which is an utterly crazy notion that seems to have been dreamt up to keep these nonsensical AFKD redirects alive. FearÉIREANN 00:38, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

To be fair, this page does precede much of the discussion we had on how to do deletion debates on seperate pages, so it's not entirely surprising mistakes were made. Today, I would have titled this page /deletion of redirects, and I'm sure Tim would have taken a different approach too.
It looks like we're going to get complete consensus on the talk page redirects, and probably rough consensus on at least two of the other redirects, perhaps more. So, even if we don't eliminate you problem with these redirects, we should at least reduce it sharply. Martin 00:52, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It does certainly seem like extraordinary measures are being taken to avoid these specific deletions. It's the "herding cats" or "picking up mercury" scheme: as soon as a decision seems near, discussion is fragmented and shifted elsewhere. -- Someone else 00:45, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Let's see, I move all discussion of deleting redirects to one page, and somehow I'm fragmenting discussion? Well, if that's the impression you get, fair enough - it wasn't my aim. Martin 00:52, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Yes, my impression is that you are subverting the usual deletion process in order to preserve these pages. But then, you thought I was subverting the regular deletion process when you mused that listing them for deletion was trolling. I suppose more than one of us could be wrong. -- Someone else 01:00, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Whether this is best page or not, it is the better than leaving it on VfD and I don't think whatever you regard as "usual deletion process" can be applied. It is clear this is not a normal set of pages, so the process is going to be different, as the pages have already been listed for deletion. There aren't any clear precedents, that I am aware of, that show what is done with relisted pages, so the process will be different. Regarding the move from VfD; that page was already far too long and people were just rambling on without even making it clear what they wanted deleted. This is why it was not possible to make a decision on these articles today - because there was no clear consensus. There was no clear anything. Angela 01:04, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)
I find no fault in anything you've done, Angela. I do have problems with applying five-month old votes to a current poll/vote, but you haven't done that. -- Someone else 01:09, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK. Here's a proposal. Start again. Create a AFKD redirects/delete page. Msg everyone who previously expressed an opinion before and ask them to come and vote. Put a banner message on the Recent Changes page and write to the wikip lists. Give it a clear timespan, say 10 days. Then ask people to vote on the following

  • Delete ALL redirects:
  • Yes? - thank you for voting.
  • No?
    • keep them all? - thank you for voting
    • No : Keep some, delete others? Here is a list of redirects: Please indicate whether it should be deleted. Please also express an opinion on each.
      • Redirect 1:
      • Redirect 2:
      • Redirect 3:

...

      • Redirect 294:

Then tally the votes.

  • If 2/3 say delete them all, delete them.
  • If 2/3 don't say delete, tally the individual votes on each redirect, Votes to delete everything + vote to delete specific redirect. If that accounts to 2/3 of votes cast on that option (delete everything + delete nothing + delete that specific one + don't delete that specific one) say delete, then delete. If less than 2/3 say delete, don't delete. Issue solved. --Jtdirl

Another point you may want to consider is whether it would be best to discuss the article itself first, and only once a decision is made on that are the redirects discussed. If Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' is deleted, then obviously anything that ever redirected to it can be deleted, because they will be redirecting to a deleted article. They would be instantly deletable without votes or discussion as with any other redirect to a deleted page. Angela 01:32, 23 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would love to have a chance to vote on or discuss this subject. I think that allowing AIDS kills fags dead to link to anti-gay slogan is a wonderful compromise for all, and satisfies the needs and utility of average folks, who want to be able to type in something, hit search, and find what they were looking forJackLynch 03:48, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Searching for that will bring up the AIDS Kills Fags Dead redirect anyway as search is not case sensitive, so that would not seem like a reason for keeping Aids kills fags dead which was already deleted before you voted on it. Angela 03:58, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Have you tried it? It doesn't seem to be the case. AIDS kills fags dead doesn't redirect to anything for me. And thank you for pointing out my late vote. I didn't want it to look like I had voted in time, but I do hope that I can have the needed impact to keep this a functioning entry. I found this article and made edits on it originally by typing AIDS kills fags dead into your search engine, and I would be sad if someone else couldn't find information as well as I. It just doesn't seem like NPOV progress to me ;) JackLynch 04:05, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Clicking on the link AIDS kills fags dead won't do anything, but searching for "AIDS kills fags dead" will lead you to the anti-gay slogan article, both via the AIDS Kills Fags Dead redirect and through the fact that text appears in the anti-gay slogan article. I don't think people not being able to find it is an issue. Angela 04:11, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

umm... yeah, except it doesn't. When I type "AIDS kills fags dead" into the wikipedia search engine, I find nothing, a dead link. Try it once. This wasn't the case in the past. Another unfortunate loss is the loss of information. What was done with all the info at the Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' article? Well, its available on http://www.tutorgig.com/encyclopedia if anybodies interested. I tried to give a more precise link, but it didn't work out, sorry. Anyways I for one am interested in restoring as much info from that article to the current anti-gay slogan article as possible, as well as agreeing on these redirects JackLynch 04:20, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia search is disabled at the moment. Try Google which currently has 55 hits for this. The content at tutorgig can be found in the page history of Slogan 'AIDS Kills Fags Dead' which still exists. Angela

OK, but I get 312 hits for this [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=AIDS+kills+fags+dead&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images Google] and 4,290 hits for this [http://www.google.com/search?as_q=AIDS+kills+fags+dead&num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images Google]. Anyways, there doesn't seem to be alot of difference of opinion here, just some concern over redirects, and the carrying over of some text (which I've for the most part already done). JackLynch 06:45, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Google link I gave was just hits within Wikipedia so I'm not sure what your point is, and if there is a difference of opinion, it isn't with me. I don't have any opinion on whether these are kept or not. I was just trying to decide the results of the vote and deleted according to what I felt the rough consensus was. Angela 06:51, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I guess I didn't understand. Anyways, I think the amount of google hits on this subject is a fact of some relevence here. JackLynch 07:05, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Deletions of 29th November

Angela writes, "I was just trying to decide the results of the vote and deleted according to what I felt the rough consensus was." Hmm. I'm sure you acted in good faith, but I understood from the sentence "This was once a vote, but is now just an informal poll," that... well, that it wasn't a vote, but just an informal poll. Actually, I don't think there should be a distinction, because I don't think that decisions should be made by formal voting at all. But the fact that in ths case such a distinction was apparently being made needs to be recognised. I was under the impression that the formal vote was still to come. I therefore assumed that this was still up for discussion, and was still planning to contribute. I didn't see an announcement that it had become any sort of formal vote, or an announcement of when the formal vote was going to start, or when it was going to end, or what criteria were going to be used to decide the outcome of the vote. I also wasn't aware of any agreement on how the votes in the different months were to be weighted. (I consider it to be the same issue now as it was in July; the fact that the content has moved doesn't mean that people are now less willing to find it.) I therefore think that the deletions were out of process. What do other people think? -- Oliver P. 07:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Aaaargh! Why did I ever get in involved in this? If you feel they are out of process, the undeletion policy states they may be undeleted and relisted on VfD. However, if you do this, may I please request that you attempt to contain the arguments on this page somehow rather than allowing it to spread all over the place again (VfD, VfU, dozens of user pages, archived delete pages etc) as was done a couple of weeks ago.
Personally, I think it is clear this was a vote. There is one line on this page that suggests it is not a vote. This is, I believe, left over from an older discussion and is not something which was added for this particular round of voting. [Martin: Angela is correct - this was from the July round] In contrast to that see the "Voting procedure" subheading on the page, the use of phrases such as "Please add your vote with...", links from VfD and RfD for over two weeks saying "please vote at Talk:AKFD/redirect, messages left on various user talk pages asking people to confirm their vote and discussions on this page and elsewhere about whether the old votes be counted or not. The top of the page says "If you came here to vote on deletion of redirects, as discussed on VfD, there are NINE separate ones here for you to vote on." Also, it was not only votes taken into account, but the discussions as well, many of which do seem obsolete now the article does not exist.
I really can't see how there can be any confusion over the fact that people were voting and this might lead to deletion, but if you, Oliver, did hold this view that there was no such vote, please do undelete them and kick off the fight again. Angela 12:34, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Oliver, perhaps you should simply update your opinion on the vote (move after the "|time|" marker, express your opinions on the new items, etc). If sufficient people come here later and do likewise, we might want to reconsider deletion at that point. Regards process, it seems clear to me that Angela judged whether there was "rough consensus" in good faith and to the best of her abilities, so I think it was in process, even if reasonable people can disagree over whether it was correct. Martin 21:54, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't disputing that Angela was acting in good faith and to the best of her abilities and all that. I think she does a very good job, even if I disagree with her about things. I'm still not sure about the process, though, because although it was clear that something that some people described as "voting" was going on, it wasn't clear (to me, at least) how long it was going on for, and what criteria were going to be used to decide the outcome. But since this case was pretty much unprecedented, I'm going to conclude that there was no process to be in or out of, so I'll retract my accusation and apologise for making it (sorry, Angela)... Anyway, I've updated my votes, although I still haven't changed them for the ones I'd already voted on. -- Oliver P. 05:14, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It was 100% clear that it was a vote. FearÉIREANN 21:17, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wasn't. Jack 04:31, 7 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Vote on whether it was a vote? :)

I've removed the listing from Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion as it's been there forever and I don't think there is any consensus on the remaining redirects, and no one else seems to want to make that decision. Angela. 10:03, Jan 7, 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/k/f/Talk%7EAKFD_redirect_cece.html"