I am not challenging the closure per se, but as I want the redirect's suitability reviewed, and recreating it is presently impossible, as the page is create protected. Consider this a criterion 3 or WP:IAR nomination. Of course, if recreation is allowed, the redirect can still be challenged with a new RfD nom; I just don't think a 13 year old discussion should permanently block off re-evaluation. If you want to know why I would like this redirect to exist, it is for the same reason existing cross-namespace redirects like cite web and cite book exist:
Being very popular and highly visible templates, new users unfamiliar with namespaces are likely to want to look them up in the search bar, and will be frustrated when the search doesn't work for reasons they don't understand
The title is specific enough that no one would input it expecting an actual article; this is why cite web doesn't redirect to Citation
People want quick access to the template page so they can copy and paste the syntax
On second read, I think this discussion should have been a "no consensus" closure on the merits. The last two delete votes say the redirect has "no purpose" without elaboration, despite Metallurgist explaining that it improved accessibility, and thus hold no weight. Two valid delete arguments, (nom and Thryduulf), two valid keep arguments, and two invalid delete arguments is not a consensus to delete. Mach6115:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse RfD closure and salting. The linked RfD is from May 2011 and could not have been closed in any other way. Subsequently content at this title has been deleted three times:
October 2015: A single-line "article" (consisting only of a malformed reference tag) was deleted under criterion A7 by RHaworth, criteria A1 and arguably A3 would also have applied. It's probable the author did not intend to place the content at this title.
January 2017: A page consisting of just "This is My site" was correctly deleted under criterion G2, again criterion A1 would have been applicable too.
February 2018: An article consisting only a filled-out infobox was deleted by RHaworth under criterion A3. This was the incorrect criterion (as there was content) but deletion under A7 would have been correct as there was no assertion of importance. The author clearly did not intend to put the content at this title.
Following the last deletion, RHaworth salted it to prevent further recreation. This is presumably what is being appealed, but it is entirely unrelated to the RfD. If the desired content was an article or something else I'd almost certainly be recommending the appellant create something in draft to be moved to this title which could then be unprotected (the history suggests that keeping the title salted until content was ready to take its place would be beneficial). However, what the wants to create is a redirect identical to the one that was correctly deleted at RfD - and if that were created I would be nominating it for deletion again using the rationale I gave as my comment in 2011 as nothing has changed since then. Bare infoboxes are not content that is useful to readers, and an editor who has not yet learned about namespaces is not yet ready to deal with even basic template syntax (and template:Infobox person uses some pretty advanced syntax). Thryduulf (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is presumably what is being appealed, but it is entirely unrelated to the RfD Even if the page wasn't salted, a recreation of the redirect would fall under G4. Better safe than sorry
an editor who has not yet learned about namespaces is not yet ready to deal with even basic template syntax (and template:Infobox person uses some pretty advanced syntax) I would dispute that. In the source editor, infoboxes have code that resemble the finished product (a vertical list of fields and values), and the visual editor holds editor's hands with the TemplateData system. As an AfC reviewer, I have seen many more instances of broken citations than broken infoboxes, and I recall being able to "successfully" vandalize an infobox as a young child.
You were not at all clear what you were appealing. None of your second paragraph relevant to a redirect to the template namespace page, what you want to recreate, but about uses of the template in an article which is very different. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf You argued that a user who wouldn't know how namespaces work when searching shouldn't be accessing the template, and I gave counterarguments to that poistion. Mach6120:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they shouldn't be accessing the template. I said they shouldn't be editing it and wont benefit from viewing the template's code. This is very different from using the template in an article - compare:
{{Infobox person
| name = Halle Berry
| image = Halle Berry by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg
| caption = Berry in 2017
| birth_name = Maria Halle Berry
The two are very different, and the latter is not something that a very new user needs a cross-namespace redirect to. New editors should learn about namespaces before creating articles with infoboxes or adding infoboxes to articles that don't have them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and keep salted per Thryduulf. This should not be a cross-namespace redirect, nor should anything else exist here that's not a cross-namespace redirect. Jclemens (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and keep salted there's absolutely no reason for there to be a page here, and I can't see a new RfD reaching a different result. SportingFlyerT·C21:00, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mach61 such an outcome is very likely and entirely unproblematic, because the two templates are very different. Read the arguments presented in the RfDs and you will understand this. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between a citation template and an infobox template so I don't think one is applicable to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
