Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 21, 2012

Gymasium[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 retarget to Gymnasium. JohnCD (talk) 19:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. I just created from a redlink, not realizing it was a typo.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:15, 21 December 2012 (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.

Peter Lanza[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 delete. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this person is not significantly associated with the event. He is not the perpetrator, a victim, nor was he mistakenly identified as the shooter, and no major coverage links him to the event. 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I see this as a clear violation of our BLP policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Actually, per WP:BLP policy, this discussion is unnecessary - whoever arrives first at this discussion with the appropriate tools should just go ahead and remove it as an obvious violation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE I added "Peter John Lanza" to the listing at this time, as I missed it when I first put in the first two. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Peter Lanza is quoted in the article, and his name appears in headlines in the references section. This bizarre assertion that we should not use his name in the article but should quote him has no basis in policy. 1,500 readers searched Peter Lanza in just the last few days, so this is useful redirect. Neither the redirect nor the article suggests he committed the crime. We have redirects for all people connected to this incident, including Nancy Lanza. See also Ryan Lanza, also discussed in the article. That redirect is being discussed below and should probably have some precedent for this one. Jokestress (talk) 06:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many people were interviewed in connection with Adam, such as his classmates, I don't think they should redirect to this article either. Nor the various politicians (school board officials, city council, etc), since they are incidental to the case. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Commment on a side-note, I do think "Ryan Lanza" is an appropriate redirect, per my opinion stated at that RFD, so I do not think Ryan and Peter are comparable as redirects. -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:45, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's too easy, Jokestress, and you are completely bypassing the BLP argument (except with your bizarre assertion that our BLP policy has nothing to say on this). The father is not the son (who was mistaken for the killer) and so they are by nature in different categories. In effect, you are encyclopedically linking the father to the son's crime, which strikes me as a violation of BLP1E. Consider that: Wikipedia says this man's relevant (he's not a redlink) because his son did something terrible--you may look at WP:INHERITED for some guidance. Drmies (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies, our BLP policy has nothing to say on quoting someone and not including their name with the quote. It's a very odd assertion. Clearly, lots of people want to know Peter Lanza's involvement in the events leading up to this, though I am sure he has been advised not to say anything beyond releasing a prepared statement. If there's consensus to remove Peter Lanza's statement from the article as well as all references which use his name in the headline, I am fine with removing the redirect. Until then, I feel it benefits readers seeking information on the incident. I am sure he'd rather not be, but he is linked to this incident. Jokestress (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are reading BLP in predisposed way. I note on your User Page that you are an aggressive non-deletionist - fair enough - but Wiki has guidelines we should follow.HammerFilmFan (talk) 08:10, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP, in my opinion.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I see no reason to eternalize the father's name with a redirect. He's a living person, and chances are he didn't ask for this. Drmies (talk) 07:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. He hasn't even spoken to his sister about the event, according to her a couple of days ago - since she has put herself in the media spotlight (with conflicting statements), seems he had good reason. Unless the dad is somehow tied into this event, give the poor man some peace.HammerFilmFan (talk) 07:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. That "discussion" was only open for a few hours before closed unilaterally, not allowing enough time for an actual discussion. This redirect discussion should not be closed as speedy, either. We should leave this discussion open for the full amount of time so we don't have to have the discussion again right away. Jokestress (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It was not unilateral. LadyofShalott, Dennis Brown and Drmies are three very experienced editors and administrators, and they all agreed. Per the closing admin's comment, "Father's name was removed per policy." And a big BLP no-no should be speedily corrected. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment whatever the merits of that discussion or its closure, it did not discuss the redirect and so this RfD should not be speedily closed based on it, doubly so has this discussion has good faith recommendations to both keep and to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2012 (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/2012_December_21&oldid=1052843862"