Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2023 November 23

2023 Rainbow Bridge bombing – speedily reopened by closing administrator. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Not a valid R3, as - while inaccurate - this title isn't implausible, which WP:R3 requires. Early reports described this as a car bomb (example) and it was initially treated as a possible terrorism attack (example). As Thryduulf said at the aborted RFD, the way to combat sloppy reporting is education, not to pretend it didn't happen. —Cryptic 11:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse removal, this was a car accident, a spectacular car accident but not a bombing. The accuracy of the project is an important factor in article naming, and purposely falsely calling something a bombing has no place on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but was it called a bombing? We don't delete redirects because they're wrong, that's the whole point of a neutral and accurate destination. Jclemens (talk) 17:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse removal. While doubtless this was briefly called many things in the immediate aftermath, but the situation has clarified. While I respect that a plausible search term may be appropriate even if not quite accurate, Randy's argument is important as well. While there are doubtless situations (eg. very slow internet) where autocomplete doesn't happen, if someone starts searching for "2034 Rainbow"... then "....explosion" will quickly come up, so I don't think Thryduulf's argument, while not invalid, is of low importance in this instance. Martinp (talk) 17:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Restore. Not a valid R3. I think that the case for keeping or deleting the redirect is quite close and requires a full discussion at RfD. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The term "bomb" was removed from the article body by the fourth edit, 14 minutes after the article was created, and removed from the article title about 30 minutes later. Readers will not be "educated" about the alleged bombing because there is no mention of it in the article. To keep this redirect, but without mentioning anything about the bombing in the article body, is to pretend that if did happen. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong overturn and trout the deleting admin. This was not a valid speedy deletion because there was at least one good faith recommendation to do something other than delete. This means deletion is not uncontroversial. There are no copyvio or other bright line concerns and no reason not to let the RfD continue. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – of a type of redirect that tends to produce mixed results at RfD; clearly controversial (although deletion here is probably preferable IMO). J 947 ‡ ^edits 10:07, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what the overturn-and-restore voters are saying is that we need to have a hatnote on the article: for a week while we discuss the redirect? wbm1058 (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is no need for a hatnote regardless of what happens with the redirect unless there is some other event with which the search term is ambiguous. No hatnote is required for almost every other redirect in category:Redirects from incorrect names, and this is no different. The readers using the search term will be educated by reading the article prose, something they will probably be unable to do if the redirect is deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy overturn and reopen the RFD. R3 (or any CSD) should not have applied due to stated good faith opposition already in the RFD. I do not support this redirect, largely per Wbm1058’s argument, and would vote delete in an RFD. However, the speedy delete process was not correctly followed here and should be reversed. Frank Anchor 13:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and let the RfD run, Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_23#2023_Rainbow_Bridge_bombing had been opened. While consensus may ultimately be to delete this, it's not implausible. Star Mississippi 13:45, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions state that Where the closer of a deletion discussion realizes their close was wrong, and nobody has endorsed, the closer may speedily close as overturn. Two souls have endorsed my decision, so the "speedy close" option is no longer available to me. Sorry, I guess this needs to run a full week, and by then most of the potential short-term damage will have been mitigated, so I guess I don't have a strong objection to reopening the original discussion after a week has passed. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Damage? Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An early close can still be possible based on WP:NOTBURO, WP:SNOW, and even WP:IAR. Personally (as an involved voter), I see zero prospect of consensus to endorse the speedy delete, which is required for the speedy to remain in force. There is really no need to run this discussion for a week before reopening the RFD for a week outside of process for the sake of process. Frank Anchor 17:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the two "souls", I continue to feel we don't need this redirect, and continue to substantively endorse the original deletion decision. However, we are not a bureaucracy, I hope, and so if my endorsement here is preventing from moving discussion elsewhere (i.e. reopening the RFD), please anyone go ahead and strike my comment above and move it to the reopened RFD. Not trying to be difficult, but travelling extensively this week with limited access so can't follow the discussion, but don't want to procedurally stand in the way of anything sensible people want even if I would disagree with it. Martinp (talk) 09:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: Are you OK with ending this discussion early? I think enough new information has come out as to make this redirect sufficiently benign as to be safe to restore, albeit temporarily to let the discussion run. I don't see any snow falling, so checking with you. We have a new theory anyway, which is actually plausible and credible. That Flying Spur indeed went flying. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Might as well move the discussion forward to a logical and encyclopedically accurate conclusion. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.