5 ms·

The article ‘list of right wing terrorist attacks exists’, but not one for left wing attacks. In fact the article was deleted… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/in

The article ‘list of right wing terrorist attacks exists’, but not one for left wing attacks. In fact the article was deleted… https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=List_of_left-wing_terrorist_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/del... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist_attacks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-wing_terrorist...

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 ago
  So the fact that a well maintained page exists for one and not the other isn’t a bias?
  - colejohnson66 5y ago
    Yes 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 ago
      But 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 ago
        Ah. 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.

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 ago
So the fact that a well maintained page exists for one and not the other isn’t a bias?
- colejohnson66 5y ago
  Yes 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 ago
    But 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 ago
      Ah. 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.