Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Spite store

I just read this

When not to use the deletion process

Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing.
Articles you are not interested in – some topics are of interest only to some people, but since Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, articles that interest some people should be kept.

Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process#When to use the deletion process Fxmastermind (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Based on that, I see this deletion is in direct violation of the official guidelines

That the deletion was proposed by somebody who refused any discussion on the talk page, on how to improve it, means it is in violation of a basic p[rinciple of Wikipedia as well. Fxmastermind (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this might be helpful

Removing all content in a problematic article and replacing it with a redirect is common practice, known as blank-and-redirect. If other editors disagree with this blanking, its contents can be recovered from page history, as the article has not been deleted. If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page,

Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects that replace previous articles Fxmastermind (talk) 16:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full last sentence of that is If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used, such as restoring the article and nominating the article for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. What's going on here is that there's a non-notable topic that should be deleted per WP:DEL-REASON#8 (i.e. non-notability) and a redirect is being implemented in its place. That isn't an issue with the article content, that's an issue with the article subject. That there are also issues with the article content does not preclude us from engaging with WP:ATD-R. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I knew there would be no discussion.

It's simple really. Only one person doesn't want the spite store to be considered notable. But it's not worth spending any time discussing it. Classic wikipedia deletion procedure. Fxmastermind (talk) 15:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there on the policy page

" If editors cannot agree, the content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page," Fxmastermind (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike this talk page, a deletion makes sure nothing remains of what happened

But exactly like this talk page, nobody cares. Fxmastermind (talk) 11:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]