Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 22

< March 21

March 23 >

March 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 22, 2014.

Floating processing unit

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 31#Floating processing unit

Chimping out

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 deleted because racism isn't funny. — Scott • talk 19:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. It was vandalism, since I apparently need to explain that. — Scott • talk 00:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Chimping out → Mass racial violence in the United States (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete The redirect is not only misleading, but also unencyclopedic. Firstly, there is no reliable definition of 'Chimping out.' The urban dictionary describes it as "Used to describe the bad behavior of black people, especially when they behave like animals" as seen here; Encyclopedia Dramatic states that it is for a black person "to become noticeably frustrated with something, then overreact to it." Although a redirect to internet slang might be better, the current redirect, and indeed the term itself is highly unencyclopedic. KJ ^{click here} 00:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete. It's not mentioned at the target, nor at internet slang. Si Trew (talk) 13:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

Deletion review

Right, this is now at deletion review and is a separate section so please do not remove this section: it's a courtesy to other editors. Please do not change your own closing comments to justify yourself and remove my courtesy note so that you were aware of it. It is premature to SPEEDY something yourself (normal editors would need another's second glance to have it SPEEDIED, I do it myself some times and am usually declined) while it is under discussion. I left a note at your talk page and you then added to your own closing remarks a reason (CSD:G3 vandalism) which were not in the original closing remarks. CSD says nothing about racism as a valid reason for CSD.

The closing remarks also say No further edits should be made to this section and this is an archive... please do not modify it. It's an abuse of process for an admin to delete something while it is at exactly the right venue to be discussed and had only been here two days. Other editors may have had different opinions from mine or the nom's. For example, there are specific words in policy about deleting an article because it is "unencyclopaedic" (see Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions) however, that is not the argument I made for deletion: and arguing against my own feelings, I don't see that consensus had been anywhere near reached. Si Trew (talk) 03:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Why would I remove this section? It's not like you've posted the exact same comment on two different pages this time. — Scott • talk 09:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

We are both in good faith, I am sure. I thought it was OK to add comments after the closing remarks, I suppose they were technically in the same section but I did not interfere with your closing remarks. You could have just made a subheading for them. The only reason I put them in two places is so that you had a chance to see them. I did what the deletion review said I should do, talk to the closing admin first, talk on the relevevant talk pages (I can't obviously on the talk page of the R itself since it's deleted) and then take it to Deletion Review. I have never taken something to deletion review before so I'm sorry if I somehow misunderstood that is how I should do it. Si Trew (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2014 (UTC)