Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep, moot, historical, meh. Take your pick, but enough of the meta-debate already. BencherliteTalk 10:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Requests for comment/CSD pseudo-namespace


The appropriate venue, as far as I am aware, for discussing deletion decisions is WP:DRV. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete You know, I believe that is the correct venue. Delete, per nom. WP:POINTy nonsense, spammed all over the place by an editor with his nose out of joint because of a deletion discussion that didn't go his way. Let's not waste any more time on this. Begoon &thinsp; talk  18:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The nominator and page creator are in the midst of a heated dispute, with WP:POINT probably being violated all around. I propose this nomination be speedy-closed for the time being, as it will only serve to escalate the situation. The RFC page isn't doing any harm. Let's allow things to settle down a bit first. equazcion  �  | 18:04, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree. Allowing the pointy RFC reinforces to the creator that if you spam this stuff in enough places (this is about the 4th, 5th or 6th), some of it might stick. Delete, and insist the correct venue to dispute a deletion be used. Splintering discussion like this in an attention seeking way is a potential waste of other editors' time, causes unnecessary discussion, and should not be encouraged. Begoon &thinsp; talk  18:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * The advertisements in article-space redirects were deleted, and all that remain now are advertisements in the usual places one tends to advertise proposals. The situation is more or less sane for now, with the exception of this nomination. Maybe DRV would've been the better venue, and if everyone feels that way, Technical 13 will certainly find that out at the RFC. For now he feels there's a larger issue at play than can't be resolved through DRV, and I don't think it's helpful to quash his efforts by continuing to try and get the page deleted (first with a CSD tag based on its namespace, and then after that was fixed, with a deletion nomination by the same editor, who has a sordid dispute history with Technical 13). equazcion  �  | 18:37, 23 Sep 2013 (UTC)
 * Respect your opinion, but when the "efforts" amount to inappropriately splattering the same whine at every venue imaginable in order to gain "some attention, any attention", I can't agree, sorry. What's not helpful is encouraging that sort of behaviour - there's enough of it already. Forum shopping inappropriately, so blatantly, wastes good faith editor time - like mine, now, so I'm done here. Begoon &thinsp; talk  18:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Technical 13 has been advised to go to DRV several times now. This is forum shopping of the most disruptive kind and it should not be tolerated. —  Scott  •  talk  19:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep DRV deals, or should deal, with specific deleted pages. This Rfc attempts to establish a more general rule. Whether there will be consensus for a general rule, one way or the other, remains to be seen. If it becomes apparent that there is not the RfC should be closed. If there is consensus apropriate guideline or policy changes can be made. Proposing or asking for comments on a suggested general rule of this sort is not disruptive. It would probably be undesireable to ahve a DRV discussion going on at the same time as such a DRV, but as long as they were cross-linked for full disclosure, even that would not be horrid IMO. The proper way to deal with RfC's that have little interest is to move to have them closed once it is clear that no useful consensus is going to develop, not to MfD them, in my view. DES (talk) 19:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * This RfC was worded as attempting to deal with the specific group of pages sharing a common "CSD:" prefix in their name. It was not supposed to establish general rules regarding pseudo-namespaces. (It has been closed early; perhaps not the cleanest way to deal with it, but still.) Keφr 19:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This is an RfC to achieve a community consensus on whether or not administrators should be allowed to abuse the toolset given to them and delete namespaces that have previously been declared to such deletions by the community. This premature closure will be referenced in the discussion to follow on WP:AN/I and deletion should be avoided. Technical 13 (talk) 19:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think that threatening to take people to ANI if they disagree with you is a winning argument. Just saying. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Close as moot, since the RFC has been closed by Monty. However, a properly formatted RFC might have a better chance at determining a clear consensus on this issue than a narrowly-focused DRV (discussing, as it must, one deletion and whether it was closed properly). UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and reopen RFC. XFD and DRV are only local consensus for specific pages, and are sometimes based on policy and guidelines but sometimes produce inconsistent or unclear results. Peter&#160;James (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A new RFC would be better, as even if it's improved and expanded in scope (to all PNRs, and possibly other CNRs) it's likely that some participants would comment based on the case and options available at opening. Peter&#160;James (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete this narrowly-framed and non-neutral RfC. contains an out-of-context and misleading quote (bolded) from User:Happy-melon's : "By contrast, the argument that cross-namespace redirects are inherently deletable is strong, and the counter that these form an established pseudo-namespace weak: it's clear from the history of pseudo-namespaces that PNRs are not welcomed, and existing PNRs are kept mainly to avoid linkrot; one editor cannot have the ability to unilaterally create a new pseudo-namespace which immediately becomes magically exempt from scrutiny." Technical 13 may appeal the deletions at WP:Deletion review, but I think that defining a process for creating new pseudo-namespaces would be more productive. If I were pursuing this, I would start a more general RfC at WT:Namespace or WP:Requests for comment/Pseudo-namespace. Disclosure: I supported deletion at WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 September 10. Flatscan (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but keep closed also. There's no compelling reason to delete this page, and keeping for historical reasons is fine, if for no other reason than it shows how this is a bad idea.  The closing admin's closing rationale is sound and good guidance for people following this situation.  -- Jayron  32  12:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Historical per Jayron, we really shouldn't delete good faith RfCs, even if they were non-neutrally framed and flawed. The RfD discussion showed that there was a significant controversy on this topic, so it's not really a case where there was clear consensus.  To be honest, I don't think the community should waste any more time arguing about this issue which is really pretty trivial, so I'm glad the RfC is closed, and I wouldn't necessarily rush to open a better one; first consider whether it's even a topic that's important enough to warrant any more attention. Gigs (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.