Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Poles are evil

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: delete per WP:SNOW. Yes, WP:RFD is the correct venue, and I actually came here to move it due to a request at WT:RFD. However, there is clear consensus so I don't see it necessary to continue to prolong the inevitable. -- Tavix ^(talk) 21:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Poles are evil[edit]

This seems to be utterly useless - An interwiki soft redirect to a humor essay on metawiki, I can't come up with a situation in which this would be useful. Saw this pop up as a suggestion in the searchbar while looking for something else. Hog Farm (talk) 03:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This deletion discussion is for the soft redirect on Wikipedia, not for the meta-article. The separate deletion discussion for the meta article can be found at [1]. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 07:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Is this or RFD the proper place for this discussion? I assumed RFD, but Twinkle automatically sent it to here. Hog Farm (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Poles are evil" is a Wikimedia meme. I'm not sure having a pointer from Wikipedia to Meta-Wiki is as scandalous as you suggest, but it also seems like this specific page gets almost no views. Shrug. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's useful to have local redirects to popular essays and the like to avoid unintentional local duplication. Nemo 07:00, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I'll vote delete when this is moved to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since it's still here. And salt - this is obvious surely? Poles are frequently the target of bigotry. We probably wouldn't even have to have this discussion if it were Jews are evil, if no one else had I would have nuked it. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. A little worse than useless, surely. I say that because of the italicized note at the bottom of the Meta essay: "Note: However, if you are a Pole and you feel offended, remember that this is meta.wikimedia.org (a site devoted to Wikimedians), not Wikipedia as an encyclopedia meant for general readership. Meaning presumably that the sophisticated Wikimedians can safely be exposed to irony and humor, but the common people need to be shielded from it. So why, exactly, would we want a redirect, which is at Wikipedia as an encyclopedia meant for general readership? It doesn't make any sense. Bishonen | tålk 09:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per Bishonen. Meta is a cesspit, but we don't need to be directing good-faith editors browsing Wikipedia into that cesspit unnecessarily. The it's useful to have local redirects to popular essays and the like to avoid unintentional local duplication doesn't hold up, since if Meta:How to deal with Poles were to be created today on Wikipedia we'd immediately delete it and almost certainly indef the creator. There's no benefit to keeping this particular cross-wiki redirect, and obvious potential negatives if even one person stumbles across it unintentionally and gets offended. (Can you imagine the field day the Daily Mail would have if they spotted this?) Some aspects of the Wild West days are worth preserving as a record of Wikipedia's history, even though they're not something we'd countenance nowadays, but in my opinion this sits squarely alongside the Bomis Babe Engine presents Almost Naked Teenage Girls as a part of our history we should be pretending never happened. (Someone should probably be taking a long hard look at Wikipedia:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles as well.) ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iridescent, and for those interested, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 April 30#Wikipedia:Friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Oof that has aged poorly. Not that I'm trying to be the fun police, I think humour is critical to smooth editing and I've read as many Poland ball comics as the next person, but I fail to see how that interlink is funny or helpful. It seemed to be a joke on the "Polling is evil" essay, but that seems poorly traveled, and last edited ten years ago. We really shouldn't be using that in discussion, nor do I think we are. Furthermore, someone who's more adept at meta than I should probably contemplate putting the meta article up for deletion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 10:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't do this in 2020.--WaltCip (talk) 13:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting; the Meta page has been nominated for deletion 5 times, with either consensus to keep or no consensus, usually due to overwhelming support from Polish editors (who find it much funnier than I do; it was apparently created by Polish editors to make fun of anti-Polish editors, and so doesn't strike me as offensive, just... lame, like most other group-generated humor). Anyway, just because they have something lame there doesn't mean we need to point to it here. It's not being used on en.wiki. Unintentional local duplication seems like a nonexistent risk. And it's not even called that any more on Meta, it's now "How to deal with Poles", and the pun on "Polls are evil" was the only part I could imagine being remotely funny to begin with. This would normally result in a vote of Meh, but since it's showing up, contextless, in the suggestions on the search bar, that moves me to delete due to the bad optics. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreeing with User:Hog Farm that this probably should be at RFD, but a monster needs to be killed wherever we have the torches and pitchforks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Iridescent. I don't think the choice of venue is particularly important. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 17:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual editors and cliques understandable make inside-jokes that would fail the front-page test when presented without the needed context. So it is with the metawiki essay and the redirect on enwiki, and I wouldn't question the motives of the persons who contributed to the essay or created the link. But now that the redirect has been nominated for deletion, retaining it would give it the community imprimatur, which is unacceptable. Also the link is essentially unused on enwiki, so there is no benefit to keeping it that countervails the potential harm. Abecedare (talk) 17:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the meta page itself should be kept, the redirect from here is unneeded --DannyS712 (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete begone hellspawn --Pudeo (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even know what this is, some old Wikipedia insider joke? A 4chan meme? This is terrible and has nothing to do with an encyclopedia project, just dumb, non-funny ethnic bigotry. Zaathras (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt The fact that meta people find this hilarious is something for its inhabitants to explain. Meanwhile, society has moved on and Wikipedia should follow. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I won't comment on the meta page, as this isn't meta-wiki. But, as far as this redirect is concerned, it is not a good idea. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:19, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue – It should belong to WP:RfD. --Soumyabrata ^talk _contribs ^subpages 05:17, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Copy https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:How_to_deal_with_Poles#Useless -> I have been a Wikipedian for 10 years (and counting). I edit a number of articles about Poland and the region. Still, I find this page NOT to be funny, useful or otherwise. Let me know when there is another voting round for deleting it, so that I can add my YES vote thereto. Zezen (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2017 (UTC) Zezen (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue. This is a redirect; those are nominated at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion regardless of namespace. Glades12 (talk) 07:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, but it's not a redirect as in #REDIRECT. No one has pointed to documentation or precedent about what to do for a soft redirect (which is just a regular page with a link). Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say they count as redirects; the basic function is the same, just not the technical workings. Glades12 (talk) 07:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any merit to pointing this out? WP:NOTBURO. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 07:36, 01 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Technically, the discussion can at this point be closed by a passing, non-involved admin as "Speedy close" with instructions to re-nominate at WP:RFD. With the consensus to delete as strong as it currently is, it truly is up to admin discretion whether or not to do so.--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue per above. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:39, 1 May 2020 (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 (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.