. Salvio giuliano 08:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
This appears to be a very unlikely search term. Not mentioned at target. I propose deletion. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 00:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:What are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 00:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
::I am attempting to have an unlikely search term not mentioned at the target page discussed by the community. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:00, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:::You have not proposed a discussion. You have proposed a deletion. Your response to my question is hard to read and harder to understand. Again: what are you trying to accomplish? Please be specific. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
::::@C. A. Russell The nom clearly proposed deletion, so I bet they would like to accomplish the deletion of that redirect. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:::::Yes, obviously. That's not an especially helpful remark. It shouldn't be this difficult to get a coherent response to what is being asked.
:::::The redirect has been proposed for deletion. By doing so—deleting the redirect named here (Primus sucks)—can you please state clearly: what are you trying to accomplish? -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
::::::Removal of an unlikely search term that is not explicitly mentioned at the target. The name seems to be an attack, too. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:Delete per nom. It looks a bit like G10 to me, for what it's worth. NotReallySoroka (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
::Well it's not, and it wasn't when User:HighInBC deleted it while citing that reason in 2015, either. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log?type=&user=&page=Primus_sucks&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype=&wpFormIdentifier=logeventslist] -- C. A. Russell (talk) 01:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:::Whether the redirect deserved to be G10'ed is subjective, although I do believe that HighInBC made the right call. However, the fact that you re-created the redirect unilaterally, when it is credible to say that the redirect disparages the band, is objectively inadvisable.
:::I admit that I erred in attempting to G4 your page (though I have then voluntarily reversed my action), but just because your page cannot be G4'ed doesn't mean that your action was advisable. NotReallySoroka (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
::::You have no idea what you're talking about ("the redirect disparages the band"). It's not subjective. G10 has no relevance to this redirect. The only way to get there is from the mindset of someone pattern matching on " sucks" and concluding, erroneously, that it has something to do with attacking X.
::::Please spend less time slipping foregone conclusions into your responses here. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 04:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep it's a term of endearment by fans encouraged by the band: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/does-primus-really-suck-249254/ {{tqq|Primus bassist, vocalist and all-around figurehead Les Claypool explains that in the band’s early days, “We’d just get up there and say, ‘We’re Primus, and we suck.’ And it kind of caught on.” The band helped it along with PRIMUS SUCKS T-shirts adorned with various things that suck, such as a vacuum cleaner or a baby with a bottle. “I think it’s the greatest thing, myself,” says Claypool.}} It probably should be mentioned in the article but that isn't a hard and fast rule if it's a commonly enough related to the target, which this is. Skynxnex (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- :I'd like to refute this for one moment: There have been 16 recent page views. I doubt this is a likely search term commonly associated with the target. https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-90&pages=Primus_sucks Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- ::A redirect doesn't have minimum number of page views to be kept. It can just be part of the discussion if it's otherwise borderline. This redirect seems perfectly helpful and not harmful. It's not a "novel" (it's been written about in musical press since 1991, at least!) or very "obscure" phrase since there's discussions about it on the Internet about it. So I don't see how it improves the project to delete this. (I also don't really understand what happened with this RfD since this does seem like a perfectly reasonable good-faith nomination even if I think it should be kept.) Skynxnex (talk) 14:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: Based on Skynxnex's comment. Would however definitely prefer that it be mentioned in the article so people don't get the wrong idea. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:Delete as an implausible search term. G10 does not apply, but since when did we start redirecting company slogans to their own articles? Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis ❄️ 15:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
::@Awesome Aasim Reason 3 for not deleting covers this: {{tqq|They aid searches on certain terms. For example, users who might see the ":Keystone State" mentioned somewhere but do not know what that refers to will be able to find out at the :Pennsylvania (target) article.}} We have redirects from slogans/phrases associated with brands and such and even have a redirect category, :Category:Redirects from slogans, to see some examples of other redirects tagged as a slogan. We won't have redirects for all slogans but given Rolling Stone, among others, have written about the redirect in question, it definitely meets WP:V as well as being something that exists outside of purely self-promotion. Skynxnex (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. The redirect was not created by accident. "Removal of an unlikely search term", although it has been used by multiple respondents, is hard to parse and not recognizable as a problem, even if the factual premises are taken as true. Removing a working redirect, including the process of proposing the removal, only (a) consumes contributor/infrastructure resources rather than alleviate them and (b) leaves seekers who are benefiting from the redirect (however unlikely it is as a search term) staring at a search page rather than a revelant encyclopedia article. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
{{hat|Unrelated to building consensus Carpimaps (talk)}}
A comment: I'd like to get an answer to these questions, regardless of whether the deletion (or further discussion) proceeds.
- Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider the strain on contributor resources that initiating such a process will entail in the event that the proposal should fail? (Please answer yes or no.)
- Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable effort check usage of the term(s) in a search engine such as Google? (Please answer yes or no.)
- Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect and leaving a notice on the article talk page, make a reasonable effort to look for the term(s) or a discussion of the redirect on that talk page? And if so, did you attempt to participate in that discussion? (Please answer yes or no.)
- Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable effort to check Special:Log for this redirect and include that in your consideration to proceed and/or include those findings and your rationale in the proposal? (Please answer yes or no.)
- Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, make a reasonable (but not necessarily exhaustive) effort to check if the term(s) might have once appeared in the article? (Please answer yes or no.)
- Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider some other time- and effort-saving alternative, such as asking someone informally about its existence (e.g. the person who created the redirect or some other interested or knowledgeable party)? (Please answer yes or no.)
- Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, verify that you are able to clearly articulate, if not to others then at least to yourself, the benefit of deleting it? (Please answer yes or no.)
- Did you, prior to initiating a proposal to delete this redirect, consider whether you would be able and/or willing to be responsive and participate in the discussion for the proposal in the event of an issue with the proposal, such as something that is unclear in the stated reasons or in the event of questions by others in response to the proposal? (Please answer yes or no.)
Thanks. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:Nobody owes you an answer to these. This appears to be a good faith nomination and the reason for nomination is obvious. I think you're taking this way too personally and need to relax. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
::I don't know where the response "Nobody owes you an answer" comes from.
::If the reason for the nomination is obvious, then perhaps instead of repeatedly insisting that it's obvious, just state what those obvious reasons actually are. (User:NotReallySoroka brought up attack pages, but the original requestor's intent doesn't seem to align with that concern.)
::(I have addressed the ad hominem aspect of the other remarks elsewhere, and I'd prefer not to have this go even further off the rails.) -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:I doubt that the nom would really read through your wall of text that generates more heat that light. I would get it if you typed this up to defend yourself against allegations, but this isn't the case. On the contrary, the nom focussed on your redirect, while you accuse the nom of all those stuff. That's ANI-worthy behaviour from you right here. NotReallySoroka (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
::Re "while you accuse the nom of all those stuff": What are you talking about? I can kind of make out that you're making some assumptions here (and what those assumptions are) based on your comment (but not entirely)—it's like someone's intercepting messages or something, tweaking them, and forwarding them to you; only that's not what's happening: instead you're responding to some perceived but inaccurate subtext in what you're reading. Can you please stick to the discussion as it actually exists, rather than trying to read between the lines? The words I wrote are the ones I meant to write. If I meant something else, I would have written that. -- C. A. Russell (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:I will not answer these, as you are almost to the point of badgering. Why are you typing out walls of text to defend this redirect? Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}
::I have clearly articulated my reason for this proposal: it does not appear to be a likely search term, especially to that target. If there was a page called "List of terms of endearment for Primus used by fans", okay. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:::I think 8 of reasons to delete covers this: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name that is not mentioned in the target, it is unlikely to be useful." Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 22:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
:I'm withdrawing my nomination. Whatever mess this has become, I don't want to deal with it. Leaving open for discussion as ineligible for SK1 (another editor has proposed deletion). Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 23:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
- Retarget to Limp_Bizkit#Live_performances where it is mentioned OR Keep but add an explanation on this trademark using a reference. (note that the current Limp Bizkit cite points to [https://archive.org/details/limpbizkit0000deve/page/52/mode/2up archive.org] which doesn't show the actual page where this info is mentioned). --Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- :Limp Bizkit#Live performances is so terrible as the suggested target for this redirect that I initially mistook it for a joke (in the same spirit that led to the genesis of the phrase that is the subject of this RFD) and wanted to applaud you.
- :If the fact that the page doesn't include the text is a problem, then that can be fixed by... adding it so it is in the article.* That doesn't require an RFD—nor does stumbling upon the discussion of the two words that are the subject of this redirect on the article talk page. (The same talk page that the RFD notice was left on.**)
- :* which is what used to be the case until the now-blocked user White Devil [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Primus_%28band%29&diff=prev&oldid=351541718&diffmode=source summarily removed it without stating a reason why].**
- :** all of which is information that is readily available and found by undertaking a basic, no-brainer, cursory search (involving literally just randomly clicking a few things) that should have been done prior to opening (not to mention during) this proposal; in other words, this entire discussion was a monumental waste of Wikipedia contributor resources from the moment it was opened -- C. A. Russell (talk) 05:06, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment I've added a brief paragraph mentioning this with two sources to the article: Special:Diff/1147370684. Skynxnex (talk) 14:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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).
