3 ms·
If we're being fair, the deletion log mentions the exact reason: it wasn't an article that was deleted; it was a (cross-namespace) redirect. The actual article
by colejohnson66 5y ago
If we're being fair, the deletion log mentions the exact reason: it wasn't an article that was deleted; it was a (cross-namespace) redirect. The actual article could've been some user's sandbox page or something. If a page is a sandbox (not complete), there shouldn't be redirects to it. When the page is complete enough, then it can be moved to the main namespace.
- lastbitwritten 5y agoSo the fact that a well maintained page exists for one and not the other isn’t a bias?
- colejohnson66 5y agoYes and no. It’s just that no one has bothered to make the page for one; you’re free to do so. Your accusation of deletion implies that there was a page that was deleted. That would be a bias, but it wasn’t the case. The page was a redirect that violated the rules. In other words, there’s a bias in the editors to not make it, but there’s no malicious bias that deleting an actual article would imply.
- lastbitwritten 5y agoBut look a little closer… Someone first moved it to userspace, causing it to become a redirect: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_left-wing_terrorist_attacks&action=edit&redlink=1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_left... Which then triggered it’s deletion.
- colejohnson66 5y agoAh. That is interesting. The reason for the deletion of the draft is supposedly inactivity. I can't see the contents of the page before deletion, so I can't comment on how complete the draft was, but it's definitely a page that should exist.