Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 15, 2011

Wikipedia:Run to Mommy[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. Not withstanding the widespread sympathy with the view that the first deletion was out of process, we now know retrospectively that the redirect was created by a user evading a block, and consequently could have been speedy deleted as G5. As Dmitrij notes below, there is a supermajority in favor of deletion, and keeping a redirect because it's funny is not a strong reason for retention (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for not deleting). DrKiernan (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment DrKiernan beat me to the punch on this one by about a minute, but given the history of the title I think it worthwhile I endorse his closure. While the headcount is clearly in favour of deletion, when those that gave no or irrelevant reasons are discounted the figures are a little closer so it is worth examining the remaining rationales further. The majority of the keeps boiled down to "this is harmless", frequently with the justification of satire or "call a space a spade". This is a valid reason to keep a redirect. However, their voices were outnumbered by those who believed this would be harmful. Given the evidenced strong feelings around this redirect, and the reasoning supporting the harmful position, it is clear the arguments for deletion outweigh the arguments for keeping, particularly since no convincing evidence of usefulness was presented. There would seem to be little objection to targeting this at a suitable essay, once one is written, but for the sake of avoiding drama I would suggest anyone considering this to wait a while before doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this is ridiculous. Let's have a proper discussion about this without anyone else (mentioning no names) butting in. I haven't restored the redirect, only the boilerplate. Black Kite (t) 23:20, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- There is a difference between a personal attack, which singles out an editor or editors for abuse, and this kind of satire, which just pokes fun at the prevailing tone of one of Wikipedia's notice boards. I think this redirect is harmless and funny, and pretty tame compared to things which have been deemed not to be personal attacks. Reyk YO! 23:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obviously. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 00:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt
  1. This was recently created on 13 Nov, has been used zero times (at time of writing) and is clearly (a) not something anyone would reasonably think to type to go to WP:WQA and (b) discourages editors, especially new ones, from using WP's processes
  2. The page was deleted on 14 Nov—twice—by the Founder himself, with a warning the second time round not to recreate it. Since the Founder is, if nothing else, a Sysop at the very least, why are we undoing Sysop actions? It Is Me Here t / c 00:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted before anyone could use it or know about it. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We're not. The redirect hasn't been restored, but the discussion had become completely fragmented due to the unilateral deletion in the middle of the discussion. Thus, the previous RfD/DRV/whatever-it-became is completely invalid. Hence, the relisting. I'm sure that'll it be deleted anyway, but let's do it properly? Black Kite (t)
Though I prefer this redirect deleted, there are several points:
  1. Jimbo Wales is just another editor with administrative rights;
  2. the due process was not accomplished;
  3. he did it per WP:BOLD, so here is a logical consequence as per that policy;
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because some people clearly have not the slightest sense of humour. Parrot of Doom 00:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Silly redirect. Or the creator could write an essay expressing their opinion on WQA. That would work too. Might have to put a "Not for the tinies" warning on it though..... --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and salt: This is going to get used to troll anyone who tries to use wikiquette. I can respect (sort of) the opinion that wikiquette is useless, but insulting people why try to use it defeats the purpose entirely. We can't do anything about editors who are self-righteous about their 'right' to abuse other editors, but let's not encourage them to spread their perspective through the project like a plague. --Ludwigs2 00:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, blatantly insulting. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Intended to uncivilly disparage those using the noticeboard involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And you know that how? Or is it just a kneejerk assumption of bad faith on your part? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:WQA seems to be criticised quite often (and, for what it's worth, I agree with some of the common arguments made against it), but I don't really accept that as a solid foundation for a redirect that some evidently find not so much satirical as offensive. If this is kept, one may as well link Wikipedia:Dramafest to WP:ANI and be done with it. Not sure how much good salting would do - someone could just as easily create Wikipedia:Run to mommy (without the capital letter), or why not Wikipedia:Run to daddy/Your Big Brother/Uncle Larry? SuperMarioMan 01:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Let's call a spade a spade; WQA is the place where disgruntled agitators flee to when they think someone is being mean to them, and 99% of the time they go there with the proverbial unclean hands. A bit of caustic, and truthful, satire never killed anyone...let people have a funny redirect. Besides, has anyone noticed what points to WP:ANI? WP:CESSPIT (created by MZMcBride no less), WP:PITCHFORKS, and WP:HAPPYPLACE. No children, puppies, or rainbows have suffered harm from the existence thereof. Tarc (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as humiliating redirect with no possible use apart from further humiliation. As I see the only use case — spitting it at the face of a person who is in doubt about the due conduct of the editor — it is even harmful in its application. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How many !votes do you think you should have? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Learn to count, and don't edit others' !votes. Thanks.(ok) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further
    WP:RFA has certainly been given a good rogering over the years... WP:Broken, Wikipedia:BEARPIT, Wikipedia:Gorillas consuming gerbils, WP:MEATGRINDER, Wikipedia:You can see Hell from here. There's a history here of sometimes sharp & pointed redirects to notorious drama-fests. Find something better to do and just let this go. Tarc (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it with fire.—S Marshall T/C 02:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This isn't the blindingly obvious call some people are making it out to be. This would have been an edgy but harmless little joke if we, as a whole, had the ability to not react hysterically to everything we see that we disagree with. Still, since there is no actual benefit to the redirect, I think it should be gotten rid of in the interests of promoting whirled peas. So in spite of the fact that it feels a little bit like rewarding killjoys, I think it should be deleted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to User talk:Jimbo Wales (Just kidding) Delete - of course. I can't believe the debate is actually necessary. It's deliberately inflamtory, provocative, and against the ethos of collegiate editing.  Chzz  ►  03:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Any humorous benefits are outweighed by the greater risks of damage to what is supposed to be a collegial editing environment. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compromise proposal - while I don't agree with those who are suggesting that the redirect as it currently stands is disruptive or an attack, I can see that this is a point of contention. My proposal, thus, is this: the redirect be temporarily deleted until such time as an appropriate essay is created, at which time the redirect be undeleted and re-redirected to said essay. Unless someone beats me to it (or someone knows of one already in existence? I didn't check thoroughly), I intend to create such an essay in a week or two. Would anyone object to this proposal? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposal is rejected, incidentally, my !vote would be Strong Keep as satirical, WP:SPADE and a useful redirect. To respond to the points raised so far, it's not in much use yet because it was only recently created, and as I said I don't agree that it's an attack (or at least is in line with the precedent, raised by Tarc above). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Disappointing proposal, in my opinion. As a trusted elected coordinator of a considerable WikiProject, I personally think your dedication to this page is more a matter of "feeding the trolls" and supporting their 4chan level of humour, which has no place on wiki, than the type of thing a coordinator should actively support - good communication, community spirit, article development and such. That's not to say you're incapable of writing an essay that is not aimed at attack purposes, in the spirit of fun. But in this case, the creator of that article has a history of abuse, a block log to prove it, more socks than he can justify (he says "just for lulz" – I say disruptive and moronic), more wiki-lawyering than a Dale Farm reject, and no respect for anyone unless they're crawling up his backside. I hate to see an elected member of our project drag us into the level of ridicule, recrimination and retorts that some of those from the GM wikiproject have been leading in a most unsavoury anti-Wiki-civility fashion. Please do not muddy your reputation by mingling your sentiments too closely with the fanatical pro-Webhamster mob. Just an observation - too many people have been harassed for their views or actions thus far in the matters surrounding this page's creator. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 13:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And as I have said, I don't support trolls or abusive behaviour, which is partially why I am supporting this redirect and offering a compromise. The creator of the redirect has nothing to do with it. It shouldn't matter what WikiProjects I (or any other participant) am a part of, but if you feel the need to comment on my involvement wrt WikiProjects, the project talk page is a more appropriate venue, and of course my talk page is always open to you. In the spirit of "good communication" and "community spirit", however, I would urge you to strike your intemperate language above. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't strike. "Words once spoken can never be recalled." Or rather, I stand by my concerns that you not create a sub-context of the said page, which could result in undue attention from those seeking to turn Wiki into a "fun house" rather than an encyclopedia. My words are never intemperate, on the contrary, they were designed to caution against siding with contempt for Wiki civility. If you choose to take it the wrong way, so be it... Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 14:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would submit that the phrasing you used supports my interpretation, though I am quite willing to AGF that that was not your intention. Happy editing! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Paul Erik. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - possibly-blockably clear attack on all who file reports on WQA. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And herein lies an element of why you're not an admin. Reasoning like that is surefire way of reason for not giving you the 'buttons'. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 10:45, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. Don't make me stick you back in the basket. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is a history of allowing redirects for satire purposes. Just because of the leading lights of this useless institution does not like to have his fiefdom poked fun at shouldn't be an issue. I hate to say it but lets use the real term for things. Most of the people who run off to WQA time after time are only running to mommy. --Guerillero | My Talk 04:23, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A dumb joke. Who created that not-funny shitpile of a redirect? Gallagher was funnier.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The practical function of WQA as it is being used at present is to provide a place for people to complain; the matters are relatively trivial because serious problems are specifically directed elsewhere. Every organization needs that sort of a space somewhere. Looking at what's there now, only two or three of the 10 sections can fairly be categorized as the sort of childish unhappiness that this redirect implies, But I do not see what harm the mere existence of the redirect does; use of it in the wrong circumstances may do harm by belittling somebody, but it's the use that would be the problem. Redirects that amount to fighting words,redirects that express an actual attack on an individual or a group, yes, they should be removed. But this is innocuous. It was in my opinion a little foolish making it, but why should we therefore bother. I am concerned about the culture of personal attacks here more than most, but this particular one is within any reasonable standard of tolerance. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The purpose of redirects is to aid navigation, period. There is a place for sardonic humor: in essays so marked. Since you can't mark a redirect as humor, you can't use a redirect for this purpose. The creation of a darkly humorous essay on the subject under this name would be acceptable (providing it is of acceptable quality). Herostratus (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand I suggest "clown on probation" for AN/I, and "clown remanded awaiting trial" for AN. RFC/U could probably use "Lavrentiy Beria" Fifelfoo (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We should promote mutual respect, not condescending behavior towards each other. --Conti|✉ 08:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; redirect was created in what appears to be an attempt to make a point, which is disruptive. Why are we rewarding that with such fall out? Why do we always get into situations such as this where an eminently sensible move (just deleting it and moving on) fails apart at the moving on part because of "due process". What are we... government? tsk :) --Errant (chat!) 10:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Created as light-hearted bit humour with a sousence of point. An oasis of fun in a desert of boring academia, it was not meant as a means to humiliate, it was not created as denigration, it was created with tongue firmly in cheek. If all the brouhaha hadn't been created by Off2riorob and Jimbo this would have just remained an uncharted backwater. But as it has been made into a mountain with a foundation built on bad faith we are here now (and in various other discussion arenas. And now the politically-correct and humour-bereft have go their teeth into it more dramah is incurred. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 10:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the intention of the creator, don't you think that this redirect would nonetheless be used by others to humiliate and belittle fellow editors? --Conti|✉ 11:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So that's you assuming bad faith then? Not necessarily about me, but about others? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the case. Name one example how this redirect could be used w/o attacking or making fun of people. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't my responsibility to defend it, it's the person(s) who use it in that manner. Does the CEO of Smith & Wesson need to defend his product when some low-life shoots someone with a S&W pistol? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Name one instance of how WP:PITCHFORKS could be used "w/o attacking or making fun of people". Malleus Fatuorum 11:51, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not defending that redirect. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But neither are you arguing for its deletion. Malleus Fatuorum 12:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because it's not the issue at hand. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand is consistency and integrity, or do they not matter to you? Malleus Fatuorum 12:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I cannot believe the number of editors here who profess to know the workings of my mind, and how many of them are willing to be uncivil and transgress WP:AGF and by doing so feel they are in the right. My intentions, for those who think they know but are wrong, are listed 2 comments up. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's well possible that you didn't intend to offend. But now that various people tell you it's improper... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:48, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why assume that these "various people" are right? Malleus Fatuorum 11:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because no-one can be "wrong" about being offended. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why assume that they're offended? The argument is in any case entirely speculative, running along the lines of X might be used for Y, so we ought to get rid of it. Knives can be used to stab and kill, but we don't ban all knives. Anything can be taken offence to, but we need to remember that offence can't be given, it can only be taken. Malleus Fatuorum 11:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And the only position you can then take is "I don't care." Which is what you guys apparently do. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, one can use "you choose to be offended, you need to re-evaluate things". --The Pink Oboe (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no control over what someone else may find offensive, thus in that sense I don't care. People can find offence anywhere if they're determined to go looking for it. Malleus Fatuorum 12:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that's where the two of you and I are living in different worlds. At least we found out where we fundamentally disagree. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith is all well and good, but I'm not sure how well it extends to humour. Perhaps you had positive intentions, but I'm having difficulty seeing any beyond humour, though I see many unconstructive uses of the redirect. WormTT · (talk) 11:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. IMHO it's a terrible idea. Doc talk 11:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And with respect to the three comments below mine: I also object to "cesspit" and "pitchforks" as redirects for AN/I (whoever created them is irrelevant), and using their existence as a WP:WAX argument to create this obnoxious redirect holds no water with me. Who even uses those redirects, really? But I'm just a non-admin idiot, so no attention needs to be paid to my 2 cents. Doc talk 12:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's rather silly, not to say hypocritical, to object to this redirect but not to WP:CESSPIT or WP:PITCHFORKS, just on the basis of the unpopularity of who created it and some mind-reading. Malleus Fatuorum 11:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I don't object to the redirect because of the creator and I do object to the other two redirects as well (regardless of whether there's any truth to those). --Conti|✉ 12:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:CESSPIT is not used at all except for two uses in RfD discussions (one of them being this one). Is it really not used at all? In that case I might as well speedy it. --Conti|✉ 12:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I referred to above, left in the hands of the politically-correct the project becomes a drab and dreary desert of stale prose. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 12:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see this argument a lot. It saddens me... all of the redirects listed here strike me mostly as bitter disillusionment, rather than some height of humour. Perhaps I look for my comedy in the wrong places :) (write the essay; it really is a problem worth addressing - but slapping a redirect to wherever the problem manifests doesn't help fix anything) --Errant (chat!) 12:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It (they?) was created with the intention of gentle light-hearted humour. Piss your pants funny was not its aim, nor is ever likely to be classified in that way. And yes I admit there is a portion of cynicism included in its creation. The fact remains that everyone is following the dictates of our Wikipedian overlords in an effort to not offend anyone. This is an impossible aim, it's attempt will bring eventual misery and boredom to the project yet someone will always be offended by an image on display, a word spoken in attempted jest. The eventual culmination will be that the back corridors of Wikipedia will be a place to avoid by anyone with a microgiggle of humour. The brightest content writers will go somewhere else and the project will have to figure out a way to survive using writers who were educated in the politically-correct times of the nineties and the noughties <shudder>. --The Pink Oboe (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Groan Doc talk 12:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have that groan looked at? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a perceived attack; now you've done it. I don't even have a nanosecond of humour. Wikipedian overlords: I summon thee to smite this offender! Doc talk 13:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If nothing else, the length of this discussion and the vociferousness of its editor population demonstrates that Jimbo was indeed wrong to speedily delete it. But the problem I see is that Jimbo will receive no LART treatment and will feel that he can do this again anytime he feels like it. So who's up for giving the necessary bollocking? Or will it be a repeat of 'he's Jimbo, let's just leave it'? --The Pink Oboe (talk) 13:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Jimbo can rightfully delete this abomination of a redirect every day if he wants.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:12, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not according to the position he's set himself up in as "the same as any other editor" - he's bound by the same consensus processes as the rest of us. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that link goes where you think it does. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well.... It's true this isn't technically an "edit war"..... that doesn't mean the topic, and all the debate surrounding it, isn't in the best spirit of WP:LAME. NickCT (talk) 17:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the title of the shortcut. Isn't that enough? NickCT (talk) 20:50, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be in some circumstances, but it's really not recommended as there are so many different things that shortcuts refer to (policies, essays, help pages, style manuals, wikiprojects, humour pages, content collections, guidelines, processes, portals, process pages, information pages, arbitration cases, external tools, request pages, indices, disambiguation pages, etc, etc,), and while some are ords that reflect the content of the page (e.g. WP:FOOTBALL, WP:BITE), others are acronyms that happen to be a different word (e.g. WP:CAB, WP:GOON), others are related to the content less obviously (e.g. WP:SANDWICH, WP:NOSE). See also WP:DJABIT. Thryduulf (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, apparently I'm being given a stern telling off from the WP community for having bandied about shortcuts to policies without being 100% sure what those policies contained. I've only got one thing to say to all you sticklers for detail! You're all WP:LAME! NickCT (talk) 03:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a useless attack-ish page. HurricaneFan25 18:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Its a bad idea at satire or a personal opinion, that is, or would be, a bit demeaning to the volunteer users that contribute to many resolved issues there, and to the users that make reports there - its a working part of wikipedia dispute resolution and adding this redirect to discussions is going to be nothing but detrimental to process. Off2riorob (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Floquenbeam. Not a personal attack, and it really should be taken as harmless fun, but clearly at won't be and serves little benefit other than the initial chuckle. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it again and keep it deleted this time. Nothing good can come from having it or using it.Deli nk (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This redirect would be a drama magnet used primarily by those who are indistinguishable from trolls. While the redirect could be used for satire, it would be used a lot more to denigrate those participating in WP:WQA, or to denigrate those who express concern over breaches of WP:CIVIL. Either delete WQA and CIVIL, or delete this redirect. Clever editors can find clever ways to express the view that someone has a WP:COMPETENCE problem, and while occasional explicit language between consenting adults is fine, there has been a recent tendency to overdo that to make some point, and it is time for the pendulum to swing back. Johnuniq (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep largely per Reyk above MurfleMan (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Created by banned sockmaster WebHamster (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). causa sui (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A request to run a check user on him was denied a while ago. The fact that it is one of several reasons, and the flimsiest, shouldn't be an issue. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You might want to look at his userpage. Your information is out of date. causa sui (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • ROFL, move to Wikipedia:Walk briskly to nearest legal guardian, then delete. Congratulations to all for creating, deleting and discussing a humorous, pointed and pointless project space redirect with such enthusiasm. Thanks to dedicated work like this, Wikipedia keeps improving: it is now by far the most entertaining MMORPG on the internet. I tip my hat in awe. Geometry guy 23:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WQA has been up for deletion three times... it's probably inevitable that #4 is just around the corner and my money is on WQA not surviving it's fourth brush with death. Why support a redirect which isn't going to be pointing anywhere soon (or at best, pointing to a historical page)? VictorianMutant(Talk) 00:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unhelpful, even if completely accurate. Trout Jimbo for out-of-process deletion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - pointless and condescending. Inks.LWC (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Humour needs to be used with care. When it can cause offence, we need to considered whether it's wise to cause this offence for the sake of humour. In this case it is not. Further, while this redirect could be used in a non-offensive way, it seems clear often it is going to be offensive. If WQA needs to be reformed or deleted, that's a different issue. Nil Einne (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - created by a malign entity, a sockmaster, in readiness for malicious attacking purposes. This is wiki, not 4chan – satire is often just as inappropriate as crude remarks, and cases that may potentially hamper civility should not be encouraged. Ma®©usBritish [Chat • RFF] 11:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:ANI, that's where this redirect should point to. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless redirect (not a plausible search term), insulting to those who use Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance. There are humor sites which parody Wikipedia, but it's just not that funny. Edison (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As Edison says, a pointless redirect created for the purpose of insulting other editors. The editor that created the redirect has now been indefblocked for persistent insults and general abuse directed toward other editors. -- The Anome (talk) 22:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So after 5 days of inactivity the stats are: 9 keep, 1 retarget and 34 delete. The consensus seems to be delete... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk)

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.

2011 Libyan revolution[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 SNOW keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the redirect be retargeted to also discuss social and political changes in Libya, as this is essentially what 'revolution' means, e.g. as a WP:DAB between 2011 Libyan civil war and Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan civil war. My main concern is not what article the redirect leads to, but that it covers the main meaning of the word 'revolution'. Anders Feder (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out several times now, the point of a redirect is to point likely pages to what the people were actually looking for. Up until this point, 2011 Libyan civil war and 2011 Libyan revolution have been synonymous, so much so that quite a few rename debates have happened. Because of this, I find it highly unlikely that anyone who gets to the 2011 Libyan revolution page is looking for anything OTHER than the 2011 Libyan civil war. It doesn't make any sense for someone to look for 2011 Libyan revolution and intend to get to Aftermath of the 2011 Libyan civil war. Jeancey (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. Neither 2011 Egyptian revolution nor 2011 Tunisian revolution point to civil wars - they point to articles about social and political revolutions. In Libya, the revolution happened alongside or due to a civil war, yet it is not at all covered under 2011 Libyan revolution. The 2011 Egyptian revolution, Tunisian revolution, American Revolution and French Revolution articles all have social and political "aftermath" sections, but this topic is not mentioned with a word in 2011 Libyan revolution. Further, it seems inappropriate to add such sections under 2011 Libyan civil war because these consequences are not war-time or military events. American Revolutionary War specifically moves such content to American Revolution, as noted in the former article's first hatnote, for this reason. Why is it that 'revolution' somehow has to mean something completely different when it comes to Libya?--Anders Feder (talk) 06:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects are simply search aids (see also WP:RNEUTRAL) and should target at the most likely source of information that the reader is seeking. In this case it is the present target. I also note that the lead of the target states "The 2011 Libyan civil war (also referred to as the Libyan revolution)".... Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:39, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirect to the civil war page. In the case of Libya's recent revolution/civil war, the two concepts are inextricably bound together, with no clear boundary capable of being drawn to separate the two. -- The Anome (talk) 22:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for the claim that Libya's civil war and revolution are "inextricably bound together", unlike any other revolution/civil war in history?--Anders Feder (talk) 07:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, at least. This gets people where they likely want to go. --Axel™ (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2011 (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:WikiProject Science pearls/List of publications in philosophy[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. Given the high level of traffic to other discussions on this page, it's safe to assume in this case that anybody who had objections to the deletion of this redirect would have raised them by now. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused cross-space redirect. No content to merge since the original was a copypaste and had no relevant edits. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:59, 15 November 2011 (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.

Wiki Wiki Wiki[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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible redirect; why would someone type "wiki" three times in a row unless they are very bored? Yankeesrule3 (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I seem to remember these things being called that at the beginning, as well as just "wiki" and "wiki wiki" as well. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 06:02, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There used to be a media hype opposing World Wide Web as controlled content to Wiki as an editable content that will eventually replace the controlled content concept. The "Wiki Wiki Wiki" was a buzz word then. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I can't think of any reasons to delete it; seems to do no harm; I can quite easily imagine usage - the etymology comes from Hawaiian "wiki-wiki", meaning "quick-quick" - couple that with the 3-letter WWW, and it's easy to see why people might look for this term. Plus, the first wiki was WikiWikiWeb - I could sort-of imagine an argument for retargetting for that, but I think the current target is better.  Chzz  ►  08:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - possibly minimally useful but harmless and no good reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:18, 17 November 2011 (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.

Pakistani textbooks[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 all. Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: It is an obvious misleading redirect because the title Pakistani textbook controversy is significantly different from the title Pakistani textbooks. It would simply mislead a searching user for the textbook related content to the controversy as well as implicate a view point from the controversy. As per WP:COMMONSENSE it would be a prejudice to say that Pakistani text books are only notable for the mentioned context as well as point 3 of WP:RFD#DELETE stands very well. The redirect User:Czarkoff created during this discussion (Textbooks in Pakistan - the second entry) has no immunity under WP:RNEUTRAL in anycase since its creation represents just a POV (and is not a moved article name space) and should be speedily removed per WP:RFD#DELETE even if consensus on the Pakistani textbooks comes to be 'keep as it is'. lTopGunl (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: With deletion of previous versions since the history is still 'advertising' the controversy page. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what is wrong about it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the opening. It implicates POV. --lTopGunl (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And so what? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV? --lTopGunl (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RNEUTRAL? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you didn't read the opening. WP:RFD#DELETE: Read point 3. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, I read it multiple times and carefully enough. WP:RFD#DELETE#3 is about the offensive wording in the name of the redirect. And this situation is clearly described in WP:RNEUTRAL#1. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My context here is, that this specific notability is not the major notability of the Pakistani textbooks, some one looking for Pakistani textbooks is supposed to go to either a redlink so that that article can be created or one of the educational articles instead of a topic that wrongly implies a one sided POV of the target and is not in the mainstream notability of the title. Had it been an alternate offensive name, it was one thing, but this title covers a large scope of content which is not under the target topic. It can rather be expanded into an article with it's own spin offs (then maybe the target's nav link can find some place there) --lTopGunl (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any other notability in Pakistani textbooks. In fact, national textbooks standards are generally non-notable (see English textbooks, French textbooks, German textbooks, Russian textbooks, Montenegrin textbooks - they simply don't exist), and I can't see a special excuse for Pakistani textbooks here. Furthermore, while collecting those examples I found Japanese textbooks redirect, which is fairly similar to this one.
So, to sum it all up: the only notability factor for national textbooks is controversy, and this redirect is a typical use case.
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:57, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why articles should not be created for the above mentioned redlinks as well. Esp. for Pakistan, a lot of current debates and other notable differences with dual course system (one being of cambridge university's O&A'level examinations) are there which can lead into a full fledged article, now that you have mentioned it, I might think of taking up the project. As for Japanese textbook link, I guess that needs to be determined too (two wrongs don't make a right). Also, common sense would dictate that a redirect to the education/literature related article is more useful incase the title is not left as a redlink. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense dictates me that national textbooks as whole can't be notable at all. The controversies make them notable, so both this redirects are rights. BTW, the information You've mentioned has already found its place in Education in Pakistan, where it belongs. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, that is even more of a reason for it to be a non misleading redirect to that article. I rest my case on that. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong keep and request protection as valid shortcut, very probable as a search query. I would specifically oppose the redirect to the Pakistani literature, as it is completely unrelated. Furthermore, I doubt that textbooks and literature have any intersection. If keeping the redirect will be considered invalid, a better target is Education in Pakistan. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:47, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually its not a valid shortcut, its misleading. If the issue is whether its redirected to Pakistani literature or Education in Pakistan I'll stay neutral on that matter but Education in Pakistan seems marginally better for the purpose since an article for Pakistani textbooks does not exist. But another option would be to deleted the page and keep it as a redlink so that an article about Pakistani textbooks can be created for their own notability (since they are a standardized version of books all over the country). --lTopGunl (talk) 13:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I don't mind if 'Education in Pakistan' makes more sense. I definitely agree that the current target is misleading. Someone looking for "Pakistani textbooks" is likely to be looking for information on textbooks in (or maybe about) Pakistan; as we have no article presently about that topic, then I thought the next-closest-superset was Pakistani literature - which surely should encompass text-books.  Chzz  ►  08:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can't agree here. One looking for information on Pakistan will search Pakistan instead. Searching for some specific Pakistani textbook will be searching it elsewhere - Wikipedia is not a general purpose web hosting. Someone interested in Pakistani education would search for Pakistani education or Education in Pakistan. I doubt there would be anyone searching these with Pakistani textbooks query. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the search reason, I provide one specification that this might be a usual search query by Pakistani English speakers (in context of type of education in relation to textbooks - since it is generally assumed that textbook is less or more related to education itself) and the same is possible for the rest other than previously stated facts of misleading/prejudice/scope. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what about search terms for Pakistani textbooks controversy? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be obvious, any one searching for the controversy will surely add that term to the search query, or perhaps a synonym of the word 'controversy'. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not that obvious. On hearing something about problems with Pakistani textbooks, reader generally wouldn't try to guess the article name (controversy, dispute, problems, reliability, censure), instead he'll search for Pakistani textbooks or Textbooks in Pakistan (this one wasn't there; created and added to this entry). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I differ from you on that on basis of the reasons I gave. In addition to that, the redirect you created just now has no immunity under WP:RNEUTRAL since its creation represents just a POV only and should be speedily removed per WP:RFD#DELETE even if consensus on the current one comes to be 'keep as it is'. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, simply because it isn't POV at all. It's plain WP:NPOV on issue You don't like. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Textbooks in Pakistan leading to Pakistani textbooks controversy, then offensiveness and misleading that would take place is visible easily. This would come under direct scrutiny of WP:RFD#DELETE#3 for speedy deletion. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was never involved in any Pakistan-related disputes before, and I don't actually care Pakistan at all, so You can't consider me a POV pusher. As You are Pakistani, and I'm not related to Pakistan in any way, I'm just more objective. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When did I call you a POV pusher? I said your creation of the new redirect by the name of Textbooks in Pakistan redirecting to the same target ends up creating a bias/POV which comes under the speedy deletion criteria. Me being a Pakistani has nothing to do with the POV issue, since both Pakistanis and non nationals are giving both POVs in the target article's sources. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:20, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't call me a POV pusher, neither I did call You. My point is that I am more neutral as I'm an external observer, while You are internal. That's a scientific principle, by the way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my reply was to make clear that I don't even 'consider' you as a POV pusher as you asked not to. An internal observer can be from both sides of the stand. Anyway, the point here is not about your or my POV, it is about the subsequent issue of the redirect you created which comes under a speedy deletion criteria as I pointed out. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:35, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it strictly qualifies for WP:RFD#KEEP#3, as the original redirect does. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, because your support for keeping the the title Pakistani textbooks was WP:RNEUTRAL which does not apply here since it is not a moved article's space bringing WP:RFD#KEEP#3 in full effect as well as all the other reasons that are common with Pakistani textbooks being a redirect in the first place for this target. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I've stated before, the older redirect (just like the newer one) are the valid search terms for Pakistani textbooks controversy and are invalid for Education in Pakistan, which itself qualifies for WP:RFD#KEEP#3. You know my point, I know Yours. I'll come back here when there would comments or suggestions from other parties. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree with waiting for other parties. And here is another suggestion (for the Pakistani textbooks redirect, since I'm still on the position about the newly created redirect, Textbooks in Pakistan, to be under speedy deletion creteria): retarget to "List of Pakistani Textbooks" where a list should be created (and that won't come under notability objections in anycase due to Wikipedia:Speedydelete#Articles#A7 as well as their own national notability and usefulness of such a list as encyclopedic content), --lTopGunl (talk) 12:32, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still oppose creating articles or lists on evidently not notable subjects when the notable subject can be redirected to. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I have to explain my position in this argument. I see a political censorship issue in such requests, as they seem to be targeted at making negative information about the country less accessible. I find the problem of Wikipedia neutrality in this regard by far more important then the redirect neutrality and a couple of extra mouse clicks are just a low price for this goal. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The political sensor ship issue can not be solved by starting to do the exact opposite of it over running the valid POV issues as well. In anycase, a political censorship issue would only come into play when there's a request for deletion of the target article. Since none of the reasons given here are political, but rather the points being misleading, POV or usefulness, political censorship is not the case. --lTopGunl (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually calling controversy article POV is already a political reason. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, none of my explanations call the article itself POV rather the redirect representing a single POV from the article creating a bias. Calling the article a POV would be an issue related to the target article and suitable for discussion on its talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Calling this redirect POV is the same issue, as it assumes that otherwise not notable topic isn't worth mention of controversy over it. There's simply no case for WP:RED in both redirects discussed, so, as I stated above, the only point of notability for Pakistani textbooks is this controversy. Consequently, this redirect is absolutely valid. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:25, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, calling the redirect is not the same issue. The article of a controversy can be neutral by giving balanced POV from both sides, but a redirect that is titled on a POV from a single side is POV itself without the political censorship being the case. Just like if some one would create a redirect named Pakistani textbooks are excellent source for history or Pakistani textbooks are the most truthful history books. I'm sure such redirects would be removed on the basis that they are representing the 'against side' from the target article. Hope you understand my stand now. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did You get the idea that Pakistani textbooks is a POV side of Pakistani textbooks controversy? It is fairly neutral. Compare to Pakistani revisionist textbooks and Pakistani truth-telling textbooks. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)The reason that it is misleading as pointed out by me and Chzz and the fact that 'Pakistani textbooks' is a general title as compared to the titles you and me pointed out for the 'for' and 'against' POV sides hence benefiting the 'for' side's POV because of the target being so. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would be valid if Pakistani textbooks was a valid search term for Education in Pakistan, which is actually not the case. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's where we differ on it being misleading and a previous comment explains why Pakistani textbooks is a more useful query for education/literature in Pakistan than a controversy, seems trivial to me. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually insist on at least semi-protection request regardless this discussion outcome, as it is evident that if such long discussion could occur here, the page would be prone to vandalism in any case. That's also a good reason to avoid deleting redirect, as it's out-of-process recreation is highly probable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request to close: The creater didn't respond, and he had left an edit summary indicating that he has no problems with further action of retargets. I suggest the page should be retarged to one of the two given suggestions along with history deletion. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early closure declined as there is no unanimous agreement nor overwhelming consensus on the correct outcome, nor is there clear consensus among those wanting a retarget which target it should point to. This is the correct venue to continue the discussion to arrive at that consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I specifically oppose to history deletions for WP:CCC reasons, regardless of outcome of this discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would specifically oppose protection on the same basis (since both processes are reversible by admins only). --lTopGunl (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Effectively in this case it doesn't apply, as anyone can freely nominate protected redirect. And protection makes sense here just to make sure that there is at least any indication that consensus has changed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly a user can nominate for a reversal of deletion. And to reflect change in consensus, a talk page serves that purpose and not the nomination. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually You've cited the reason why You shouldn't oppose to page protection: I doesn't complicate the due process in case of redirect. Interestingly, You oppose the protection on ground of impossibility of committing changes without asking administrator. Are You going to commit some changes out of due process? I hope You're not. Then what is the real reason You oppose protection? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page protections are limited to pages that are prone to editwars, and I think other wise it would complicate the due process (or all the redirects would be protected since it would be 'easy to go', right?). When you cited WP:CCC, you actually cited the reasons for the page not requiring preemptive protection. Unless ofcourse you believe that I might use 'other means' if I don't get a consensus? If I was planning to do that I wouldn't be bringing it up here now would I? Yes, just like you opposed the possibility of reversal of deletions which was an administrative task, I could also support/oppose the same. Actually it is queer how you support protection and oppose page deletion with them being similar issues. Or was it a tit-for-tat response? --lTopGunl (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See my arguments for protection and against deletion right above Your Request to close. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify my position, I oppose protection (unless editwar causes it) regardless of the outcome as well. --lTopGunl (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect is inherently POV. to redirect a general page to p page discussing one small aspect of the subject is very dubious in any case; to redirect it to a page discussing a controversy about one aspect of the subject is to dire c anyone looking for any information on the entire general subject to this particular controversy. I see no reasonable place to redirect to, and no need for a redirect. at all. The example of the Japanese textbooks redirect is not a good one--it too should be deleted for exactly the same reasons as here. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And what is the general subject? Really, what information is supposed to be present in the article with such name? And I don't understand, what is the problem if someone looks for information and fails to find it - there is a whole AfD process to ensure that this happens daily. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk)
  • Delete per DGG and POV concerns raised by nominator. Redirect to something else if neccessary. Mar4d (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a third relevant redirect Japanese textbooks should be listed to this as well with the decision of these affecting that too (since an editor gave that as an example) which would have the same issues. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. It Is Me Here t / c 15:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. It Is Me Here t / c 15:32, 20 November 2011 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_15&oldid=1151013867"