Flags of cities of the United States ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article is actually a redirect to Wikimedia Commons, which means maybe the page has been deleted for over two months ago. Means the gallery of the images of the flags is WP:LISTCRUFT. Heraldrist ( talk) 05:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment As you say, this is not a list so WP:LISTCRUFT does not apply. It was not a recreation so WP:G4 did not apply (on either occasion). It is a soft redirect so if you want it deleted you need to refer to Wikipedia:Soft redirect#Deletion which tells you to use Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. If you think the list on Commons should be deleted then seek deletion over there which would, I expect, lead to deletion of the soft redirect here. I don't see any of this as beneficial but DRV is not the place for me to venture such opinions. Thincat ( talk) 11:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The XfD could not have been closed as anything other than delete and the G4 speedy deletion was correctly declined both times. A (soft) redirect cannot be "substantially identical" to anything that is not a redirect, and once speedy deletion nomination has been declined or reverted by someone other than the creator then it cannot be speedily deleted (under that criterion or for similar reasons, unless there is some change in objective facts) because deletion is not uncontroversial. If you think the redirect should be deleted, then you should as Thincat says nominate it at RfD (this could go either way). If you think the gallery itself is inappropriate for Commons then nominate it for deletion there - I'm not familiar with their policies on galleries so don't know how likely it is to be supported, but if the target is deleted and there is no alternative target, then the redirect will be eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G8. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• @ Heraldrist:Um - I am not sure what you are asking for here. Is it: The delete close of the AfD to be overturned? It seems like it accurately reflects the consensus and the delete arguments are reasonable interpretations of the policies they cite. Paul 012's removal of your and Praxidicae's G4 tags be reversed? As far as I know independent editors are not banned from removing speedy deletion tags. The tags wouldn't be correct anyhow - G4 only applies to "substantially identical" pages (h/t Thryduulf) and a soft redirect to the place where galleries are allowed ( commons:Commons:Galleries) is not quite equivalent to hosting a gallery on-wiki. Alexphangia's soft redirecting to Commons being reversed? I think you'd need to do this at WP:RFD, not here - the soft redirect isn't a deletion nor was it done pursuant to a discussion, so WP:DRVPURPOSE wouldn't apply here. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Question - What is being requested here? Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the closure, but it doesn't seem to be. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• What is actually being requested here? Stifle ( talk) 09:26, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I think it's the G4 speedy deletions being declined, but @ Heraldrist: please clarify what you are asking us to review. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply
• The g4 would only be justifiable if a soft redirect to Commons had been discussed at the afd and explicitly rejected. Even then, most admins would decline to speedy without a trip to RFD too. Take it there. — Cryptic 01:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC) reply