. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = Andy Mabbett }} → :The Amazing Pudding (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Mabbett&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2018-03-08&end=2018-04-06&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Andy_Mabbett stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Andy Mabbett|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Andy Mabbett closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Andy Mabbett|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Andy Mabbett closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Andy Mabbett|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Andy Mabbett closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
:::Seriously - you are the subject of the redirect - your opinion is hardly impartial. So Delete as vanity. Legacypac (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Redirect is not logical or necessary. Does not meet notability -- a fan publication is not equal to notability. I fail to understand why this redirect exists. Puffery and fancruft. BrillLyle (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
:Brill Lyle has just been [https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BrillLyle&diff=662235473&oldid=660613458 blocked for three days] on Wikidata after I and others complained about her behaviour there, It's hard to see how this is not an act of retaliation. One of the other's complaints was {{Tq|"BrillLyle has a history of using the deletion process as a tool of harassment"}}. I'll be taking this to WP:ANI. And speedy keep, obviously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
:: Let us be VERY clear that I am not the only one blocked here. Andy is blocked for 31 hours from editing as well see: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3APigsonthewing Also, let's be very clear that I am not the subject of multiple ANI conflicts. That prize goes to Andy.
:: Which is not really the point now is it, Andy? The fact is this redirect is puffery and fancruft. This redirect should not exist. Notability of even a redirect needs to be established as necessary. This is not the way Wikipedia redirects should work. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Andy Mabbett was one of the main editors of the publication, so it is a reasonable search term. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Examine the publication. It's a fan publication. Andy started the page. This is at minimum a COI and a case of a Wikipedia editor promoting themselves personally. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. I honestly don't understand the deletion rationale here. If we have content about someone, then it makes sense to have a redirect from their name to the article which carries that content. If you don't think the publication itself is notable, then surely the approach is to nominate that for deletion rather than nominating redirects to it? If you don't think the editor is notable, that's fine - we'd only require notability for Mr Mabbett if we had an article about him, but not for mention in an article about a different topic, and not for a redirect. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep If I was looking for information about Mabbett as a person as opposed to as a Wikipedia editor, then this redirect would be useful, and I fail to see the problem with it. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:47, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep someone could close it as SK1 even - no valid rationale for deletion as in WP:RFD#Delete - N doesn't apply to redirects. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep so long as we have the article the redirect is appropriate. I do, however, question the notability of the publication. I see several sources but, on first inspection, none look like they could be called independent, third party reliable sources. I am also am concerned that, while there are four publishers all of the positions in the infobox read Andy Mabbett et. al.. Seeing a Wikipedia editor's name five times in ~160 word article, of which the same editor is a major contributor raises some red flags to me. When that same editor is listed as an author on 8 of the articles 14 sources those flags turn to flashing lights and blaring klaxons. I'd AfD it but I do not have the resources for a good WP:BEFORE or the patience to perform one right now. Jbh Talk 18:20, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy keep by all means nominate the article itself but no reason to nominate a redirect? Theroadislong (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Strong delete per nom. Given obvious lack of notability, its hard to see how this is anything other than vanity. TammyBri (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)this is this editor's only contribution to Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Indef. blocked as a sock-puppet. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per Jbh etc. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep Obvious COI and yet no clear breach of it. OTOH, WP:SOCKPUPPET seems to be being thoroughly ignored here. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Keep I also don't understand the rationale. If the publication is notable, a redirect from the editor is what I would expect. --Muhandes (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - No valid reason for deletion - Whilst one could say POTW shouldn't of created that redirect either way we have an article on his (and others) magazines so keep. –Davey2010Talk 22:10, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.