PlayStation(R)4 (talk||history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Linked from some files' metadata: e.g. File:Nando Angelini 1964.jpg, File:Ivo Garrani - Gedeone.jpg, File:Sodoma e Gomorra (film).jpg, File:I due compari.jpg. --MSMST1543 (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep, based on the revelation that this is objectively a valid metadata link. See Template:R from file metadata link. The discussion can even be read as a consensus to keep after reweighing the arguments with the full fact picture. What Tamzin said. I didn't look at the dates at all apparently, apologies.—Alalch E. 22:20, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep Recreate as a valid {{R from file metadata link}}, as an inadvertently broken link from metadata. I was about to recreate it myself as an uncontested fix, but then saw it was speedied three times last month, by three different admins, as G4. Am I missing something here? Pinging @Significa liberdade, Hey man im josh, and Pppery to figure out if there's a reason not to speedily fix this. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 23:16, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• "Overturn to keep" is clearly an inappropriate outcome here. There's no way of reading the 2018 discussion as anything other than a consensus to delete in my book, and "overturn"ing it based on an argument that wasn't even brought up until half a decade later is not just how things work. As far as I'm aware, this DRV is the first time that "file metadata" was brought up as an argument, so what I must have seen is someone pushing an against-consensus campaign to recreate a redirect deleted by community consensus, and felt duty-bound to delete and salt to put a stop to that. The strongest action I could get behind here is to relist at a new RfD, as basically the redirect equivalent of WP:DRVPURPOSE#3,. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:24, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is accusing you, Pppery, or any of the other admins of doing anything other than what you were supposed to do. But now that we have this new information, is there still a valid reason to keep this deleted, or even to go through another RfD? I've changed my !vote above to reflect the fact that there was no mistake in the closing or the G4 application. Let's not drag this longer than it needs to be. Owen× ☎ 23:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Because doing so would be making inappropriate presumptions about what other people would have thought if they had known that information, of which we have no idea and therefore shouldn't assume. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @OwenX: Why wouldn't I have G4 deleted it if I'm processing CSD requests? It pointed to the same location and the outcome was clear, and, additionally, other similar redirects were deleted based on consensus for such. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. The question is, now that we have more facts, why wouldn't we recreate that redir? Owen× ☎ 00:51, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I failed to notice the date of this RfD. I'll adjust my comment here accordingly —Alalch E. 04:00, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In a DRV about another RfD, for another metadata link redirect, rather than "DRV [being] the first time that "file metadata" was brought up as an argument", the pro-metadata link argument had been expressed in the RfD and was rejected by seeming consensus, and that seeming consensus (which was not really a consensus) was discarded at DRV as just a series of wrong comments, with the outcome of "redirect restored". Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 February 19#Windows Photo Editor 10.0.10011.16384.—Alalch E. 04:46, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That DRV came to the wrong outcome. It shouldn't be DRV's responsibility to second-guess RfD votes like that, either here or there. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation notwithstanding G4, without prejudice against RfD. It's true that there was nothing procedurally wrong with the RfD. It's also true that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and there's no reason to send this back to RfD, given that file metadata redirects are usually kept per WP:R#K5. If someone wants to take this to RfD, they can, but there's no need to presuppose that; just recreate and include an ES note that, per this discussion, the redir is exempt from G4. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:07, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As the RfD closer from 7+ years ago (!), yes, please just go ahead and recreate it if it will be of use. I echo Pppery, in that I humbly submit I didn't misread consensus, but if this discussion is closed as overturn, my pride can handle it. --BDD (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Why doesn't the "what links here" link work for files? Is it because it's been deleted? I'm trying to get a sense of the scope of this. SportingFlyer T·C 05:31, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is not an accusation that there was anything improper in the RfD, not by the nom, not by the closer, not by the participants. This is a separate assertion that because the otherwise inappropriate link is used in certain Metadata, we need to have something there. I count that as 'significant new information' per our purpose criterion 3. As such, yes, let's put it back if that's really what we do with things, pleading that I don't usually mess with RfD to that nuanced of a level. Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The problem here appears to be the idea that a closure of a CFD or RFD is a final decision such that any restoration, years later, is subject to G4, so that any request to restore it has to come here, to DRV. We tell editors who want to recreate an article to go ahead and recreate it subject to a new AFD. Should there be some sort of expiration date for the deletion of categories and redirects? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't mind these cases coming here to DRV. We could never agree on a universal expiration for RfDs and CfDs. But this should have been trivially closed within a couple of hours, not required to run for seven days. "Recreate", "Vacate" or even "Overturn" should not be seen as an affront to the admins who closed the XfD or enforced it with a G4. They are not on trial here, and if they were, they'd summarily be found to have done their job correctly. Why do we need to send this back to RfD? Do they have more competent or experienced participants than we already have gathered here for this DRV? DRV is listed in policy as a valid deletion venue. We can--and should--adjudicate such straightforward cases without tossing them back to XfD. Yes, the close was procedurally correct, the G4s were correct. Cheers all around. And now that we know what the problem is and how to fix it, let's just fix it and move on from this Kafkaesque discussion already. What's the risk here, exactly? That someone will show up tomorrow with a valid reason to delete this redir and re-break the metadata links? Please. Owen× ☎ 16:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that what is Kafkaesque is that these requests come to DRV in the first place. This violates point 10 of what DRV should not be used for, which I just quoted with regard to an article. It says: Deletion review should not be used:… to ask for permission to write a new version of a page which was deleted, unless it has been protected against creation. We don't want article requests coming here, so why should we have to review these redirect and category requests? Just recreate the category or redirect, and put an explanation on the article talk page or category talke page explaining why it is not a G4. If it is tagged for G4 anyway, contest the G4 on the article talk page or category talk page. Or the would-be recreator can just talk to the closing administrator and say that things have changed. That's my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Robert McClenon, while I agree in principle, the title is currently SALTed. Again, it was correctly protected after the third time it was G4'd. The appellant applied WP:DRVPURPOSE point #10 correctly in coming here to request unSALTing and recreating the redir. But even without the SALT situation, one problem with RfD and CfD is that in the absence of prose, any recreation is essentially identical to the deleted version, and thus falls into the G4 trap. The situation of a valid recreation of a deleted redir or cat is rare enough that we don't need to update policy to deal with it. We can easily handle the occasional instance here at DRV. I just wish we did it more efficiently, without endless, pointless debates, relistings and renominations. To wit, no one here offered a valid reason to keep it deleted. Why hasn't it been restored yet? That, not a bona fide, justified, policy-based request at DRV is what's Kafkaesque here. Owen× ☎ 20:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see that this was partly my mistake then, User:OwenX. I had not checked the history and had not seen that the title had been salted, and we really are in DRV territory. The recent history, with two previous attempts to recreate the redirect that were deleted as G4, does illustrate something that the ghost of Franz Kafka may be writing about for the puzzlement of other ghosts. Perhaps this also demonstrates another reason why some religions forbid attempting to communicate with the dead. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Recreate as a redirect from metadata - probably don't even need to let this run. SportingFlyer T·C 02:22, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Recreate as {{R from file metadata link}}. Redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]