Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 1#1562022393
=[[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 1|July 1]]=
==Americo==
==Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?==
: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 keep
- {{no redirect|1 = Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? }} → :Wikipedia:Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM%3F&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-06-01&end=2019-06-30&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=Wikipedia%3ACANSANFRANBANFRAM%3F stats])
[ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM?|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#Wikipedia:CANSANFRANBANFRAM? closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
This redirect is substantively the same this redirect which was deleted after this discussion. Anne drew (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. This redirect is substantively different from "SANFRANJANBANSFRAM", the redirect that was previously discussed and deleted, insofar as it has letters in a different order and thus has a different meaning. This is how language works? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. No it's not the same thing. It's a question, rather than an assertion, and it's the same question a lot of the community have been asking. The nom should find something more productive to do, than to keep trying to throw roadblocks in front of that discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Meh keep. The prior redirect was "SANFRANJANBANSFRAM" which was, rightly or wrongly, deleted on attack/BLP grounds because it implied that a specific person (Jan) was solely responsible for the ban. The current version avoids that concern. Ordinarily I would !vote delete anyway because the redirect feature is meant to be used for actual redirects, that is, situations in which a reader might reasonably type in an alternate name for something that is present on Wikipedia under another pagename. But in the prior RfD, a consensus was emerging that this situation called for allowing a bit of humor, and I don't think we should spend another week here arguing about that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
:*It's worth a month, at least? Martinevans123 (talk)
- Keep The previous redirect included someone's name, and was speedy deleted because the humor-challenged could plausibly infer that the redirect was attacking that person for banning Fram. This redirect does not have that issue, so it does not make sense to use the previous rationale as a reason to delete this one. Additionally, G4 speedy deletion (the usual process by which things are deleted when the same reason applies) is only valid for things that were deleted as the consensus of a full deletion discussion, not true in this case (there was a deletion discussion, but it was headed the other way until cut short by the speedy). (I happen to think the original redirect was funnier, but oh well.) —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep The previous redirect suffered from a fatal flaw, in that Jan is German; his name, therefore, did not fit the intended rhyme scheme. The current redirect at issue has a flawless rhyme scheme, does not get personal, and is therefore perfectly kosher. Thank you! Elizium23 (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- :Typical WMF.... JAN today, JAM tomorrow! Martinevans123 (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- ::SANFRANFRAMBANJAM? EEng 22:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep - faulty premise. Killiondude (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - The former redirect was not deleted as a result of the linked discussion. It was speedy deleted under WP:G10 as a unilateral admin action. This redirect alleviates that concern. Otherwise, the discussion resulted in no consensus to delete. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 22:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep This redirect does not contain "JAN", so where is the offence?. Dr. K. 22:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep per all the reasons articulated in the last RfD, and overturn the previous version’s G10 deletion so the RfD can actually handle whether there’s an attack concern. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 22:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy keep if that is the rationale. This does not have the same problem as the previous one. SmartSE (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Keep: Although I believe there was no consensus regarding the close upon which this new RfD is predicated, I do not comment on the propriety of that. Instead, I'd like to note the substantive difference: this one lacks any and all terms that can or could be considered a personal attack. As such, it ought to be fine. (In short, and in a more jocular manner, I note that Elizium23 is perfectly correct.) —Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - {{u|Anne drew Andrew and Drew}} have you even read the last discussion .... If you had you'd know these aren't the same at all, Snowflakes today always finding something to be offended at. –Davey2010Talk 23:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
-----
(The discussion was closed at this point. Steel1943 (talk) 17:14, 2 July 2019 (UTC))
-----
- {{U|Ivanvector}}, you are seriously out of line here. Oh wait. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjYoNL4g5Vg#t=5s Never mind]. EEng 23:15, 1 July 2019 (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.