Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 January 20
2019 January 22 >

21 January 2019

  • The dufflebag – The status quo prevails, but a recreation of the redirect is possible. To summarize the facts: The dufflebag was created with vandalistic content, then redirected to Duffel bag. This redirect was made subject to an RfD, which was closed as "delete" after one comment and half a day. On their talk page, the closer then cited WP:CSD#R3 (implausible typo) as grounds for doing so. This closure is contested here. In this DRV, opinions are distributed roughly 10 : 6 for overturning/relisting and endorsing this closure, respectively. This results in no consensus. Now, normally, a no consensus result at DRV means that a contested XfD closure is maintained by default, but that a contested speedy deletion is overturned or submitted to AfD. This deletion is sort of a hybrid of both: it was made in the course of a regular XfD closure, but was then justified as a speedy deletion. It is therefore difficult to determine what should be done. Taking into consideration all circumstances, including that there is no worthwhile history to preserve, I determine that the most consensual course of action is the following: The deletion is maintained but without prejudice. This means that anybody who believes that this is a worthwhile redirect can recreate it. And anybody who disagrees can then take the redirect to RfD again, where, I suggest in view of this discussion, the discussion should not be prematurely closed again. Sandstein 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The dufflebag ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Premature closure, and even as a speedy deletion, this redirect does not meet WP:R3. The duffel bag article lists "duffle bag" as an alternative name, and the addition of a definite article does not make this a clear-cut enough case for R3 speedy deletion. I consider there to be a reasonable chance of this surviving RfD. I've discussed this with the closing admin at User talk:JzG#The dufflebag RfD closure. Also, if this were created as an article (regardless of notability) and subsequently redirected, this should not have been deleted under R3, because it does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects. Regardless of the result of this RfD, if this were intended as an R3 speedy deletion, it should be marked as such in the RfD closure. feminist ( talk) 01:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Relist. I was also confused why this one was closed so soon after it was opened, but didn't care enough to ask about it. There has been good faith opposition to the deletion of this redirect, so the discussion needs to be open long enough for that opposition to registered properly. I also appreciate Feminist's detailed explanation why R3 is invalid. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Relist. The XfD was open for half a day and garnered a single comment. What's with the rush to close it so fast? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Relist per Tavix and RoySmith, who have covered my feelings accurately. SportingFlyer T· C 06:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse my deletion. The sole objection to this appears to be on the basis of process, the sole !vote was delete and was 100% correct on its merits and did not take into account the fact that the redirect should never have existed in the first place. The "article" was created in 2005 as an unsourced slang dicdef, redirected because that's easier than deletion, and has no inbound links. It was not a typo created by some good-faith newbie and deserving of any consideration, it was redirected as the quickest way to fix a problem. It should have been speedied back then then but the redirecting user was inexperienced (<300 edits) and we didn't apply G3 to obvious hoaxes back then int he way we do now. Neither the creator nor the redirecting user has edited since 2006 and it has been untouched since then save one bot edit fixing a double redirect. The title includes the definite article and is mis-spelled so it is of zero actual use and, if created today ab initio would qualify for R3. What is the point of relisting? Who is going to want to keep it? Why would we need a mis-titled mis-spelled redirect left over from a bit of sophomoric vandalism? This is process for the sake of process and is utterly ludicrous. Even listing it the first time was more than it was worth, this is an absolutely slam-dunk case for deletion as quickly as humanly possible. The debates over this redirect have taken vastly more effort than was ever put into it, and that in turn was vastly more than it was worth. Guy ( Help!) 08:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for confirming that this page is far from meeting the "recently created" requirement for R3 speedy deletion. feminist ( talk) 11:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • If you think this is such a waste of time, then you should have restored the redirect and relisted the discussion when asked so we don't have to go through this process, and your suspicion that the redirect should be deleted would then be confirmed after about seven days. The redirect has been existing completely harmlessly for over a decade, one more week will not hurt in the least. As for "Who is going to want to keep it?", some people want to keep any redirect that is "neither new nor harmful". Either way, I see you have strong feelings about this particular redirect, so I don't think you are neutral enough on the matter to be a good closer. You should have simply left your opinion at the discussion rather than close it. Then, when the closer comes around at the appropriate time, there would be a stronger consensus for deletion at that time rather then the current mess we have because you weren't able to follow the correct process. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
This is the most stupid argument I can recall in recent years. The redirect is useless. The entire bullshit here is because one person decided that it had to have its X days of people agreeing it was useless. This is processwankery of the absolute worst kind. Guy ( Help!) 20:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
The place to decide whether or not a redirect is useless is at RfD, not here. We are welcome to have this disagreement there when/if this gets relisted. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I refer the hon. gentleman to the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram. The correct solution to a waste of time is not to waste even more time. WP:IAR is one of our oldest rules. Guy ( Help!) 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Wow. So much effort to preserve a useless redirect that has never helped a single editor or reader, that was created by a vandalism-only account who liked hoax articles about scatological sexual positions, and that persists only because an inexperienced editor didn't know how to get something speedied fourteen years ago. It should have been cleaned up right after it was created in 2005; it's better than nothing that someone deleted it now. And someone is actually pulling out WP:ADMINCOND over this? Seriously? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 19:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per guy and TenofAllTrades. No reason to go through the full process on this, it'd be a complete fucking waste of time. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 19:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy closes solely to save time never actually save time. Case in point. — Cryptic 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per IAR, Guy and TenofAllTrades. Valeince ( talk) 20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't understand the anger from the endorse side, now with multiple users chiming in with profanity. Someone cared enough about the speedy close to contest it, and since this isn't actually a typo (unless you're referring to the lack of the space?) but an alternative spelling (see [1]) I see no reason to not let this run the entire week. SportingFlyer T· C 21:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
They asked, I told them, and they decided to insist on WP:BURO anyway. That is quite silly. Not at all what I expected from that editor, and pretty close to inexplicable once any explanation is given. Also note that I am English. My school is more than twice as old as the word fuck. I swear all the fucking time. Guy ( Help!) 21:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't find it at all silly that some editors wish to keep a harmless, long-standing redirect. Rather, I find it quite silly that you are denying these editors the opportunity to do so. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Not angry at all. I just find the objection to cursing really fucking stupid, so used it for emphasis. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 19:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strongest possible endorse per Guy and TenofAllTrades. Bringing this here served no possible purpose. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Newyorkbrad: OK, how does an out-of-process delete over the objections of an established editor do any good? Sure, this is likely going to end up deleted. But when people ask "why is Wikipedia losing editors", I'll point to things like this. We have a policy for how to handle discussions like this. There was no rush to delete this. It does literally no harm. I just did some looking and I'm guessing that this is somehow part of a larger issue? On its own, the deletion is wrong and (mildly) harmful for no reason at all. If there are deeper Wikipolitics going on, well, great. But the nom is correct and DRV generally doesn't smile upon out-of-process speedies for good reason--it can be discouraging to non-admin editors. Hobit ( talk) 04:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
      • "The dufflebag" is so plainly a nonsensical redirect that it does not require seven days of discussion to establish the fact. By the logic of this redirect, "the" could be appended in front of the name of virtually any topic to create a new redirect, regardless of whether the definite article is semantically appropriate in such context. This obviously is not the practice and could not reasonably become the practice. As has been noted above, the only reason the redirect exists is as a historical accident resulting from decade-old vandalism. This unreasonable redirect with the "the" is quite distinct from "duffle bag" or "dufflebag" --> "duffel bag", which are reasonable and appropriate redirects and no one is questioning them. On the other hand, even "the duffelbag" (with the more common spelling) does not exist as a redirect, nor is anyone suggesting that that redirect be created—which confirms that redirects from the "the" form are unreasonable. While the RfD discussion could have been left open for seven days, it was hardly necessary to do so. I perceive that bringing this to DRV was intended to make a point that it's possible to object to an early closing, rather than out of any legitimate disagreement with the outcome of that close. Reopening the discussion on DRV was not, in my view, a worthwhile use of the project's most valuable resource, which is our editors' limited time. It should always be remembered that Wikipedia's internal processes are not ends in themselves. Sherlock Holmes famously declared that "I play the game for the game's own sake" ( BRUC), but that is not the right approach to our deletion processes. I also consider myself sensitive to editor-retention issues but I can't imagine that the speedy deletion of bad redirects is a meaningful aspect of the problem. I therefore have little doubt that this DRV was a waste of time, and that reopening the underlying RfD would be even more so. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn for seven days or demonstration of SNOW. There was no imperative to rush this deletion. Standard processes for standard things should not be shortcutted without good reason, and good reasons are rare. Closes like this undermine respect fir admins generally. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Mildly chastise both the RfD nominator and closer for communication failures. It was not a fork. It was speedied for reasons not revealed. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn speedy Yeah, admins don't get to do things just because they want to. And IAR is a great policy, perhaps my favorite thing about this place. But speedy deletion is a really bad place for IAR. Once someone objects, just undo an out-of-process deletion. The problem is that a non-admin should be able to have some form of due process and not just get run over by a single admin. It's about editor retention and remembering that it's a mop, not a trump card that gets played in a dispute. Hobit ( talk) 03:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
No, it's a great place for IAR when the original article should have been nuked as a hoax instead of redirected and the redirect is useless, which this is. In fact it's not ignoring rules at all, it's applying them as they shold have been applied all along. Guy ( Help!) 20:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
There was an original hoax article behind the redirect? Is this hidden history affecting a few admins that know about it? Can someone please temp undelete so we can all see the full picture? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC). I see on rereading, the complaint seems to more about the deletion of the history behind the redirect than the redirect itself. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Without undeleting, because that would be a pointless waste of time, the entire text of the original bit of vandalism was "Dufflebag (the dufflebag)= Pleasuring a woman using feet as opposed to fingers. Also can be used in homosexual activity through the anus.". That's actually one of the milder hoax "articles" created by the original vandal. The vandalism (not a real article) was converted to a redirect by an inexperienced editor a day later, presumably because that inexperienced editor didn't know how to – or couldn't be bothered to – ask an admin for deletion. You want to make sure that we put that back up for 7 days before we re-delete it? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks, that explains much of the strength of opinion of the endorsers. You should have better temp-undelete, so that we could have read it in the history where no engine would ever read the text. In all my searches on “The Dufflebag” I never found anything like that. That history should be deleted, and I think no one cares if the redirect is recreated. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I'm disappointed that you still think – based on your vote above – that this needs a 7-day re-discussion. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Did I say that? Reviews are important things, and should not be rushed. Are you wanting to rush me into a formal change of !vote based on the last few minutes’ new information? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Yes, you did say that, given that you didn't revise your original "Overturn" vote. This isn't that complicated, fetishization of process aside. JzG correctly disposed of the situation, which required about 10 seconds of contemplation, not a week of discussion. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Maybe JzG should spend more than 10 seconds when summarily overriding an XfD. A better explanation, for example. I note that User:Bsherr’s RfD nomination statement makes a completely different implication about the history, “Was originally created as a fork”. Accidental forks are a reason to create a redirect. However, it was not an accidental fork, and its previous version(s) didn’t match the redirect target, which is a reason to delete. I’m leaning to calling that an understandable mistake by JzG (the evidence of the mistake is this discussion), and that at a minimum a better explanation of the prior content being speediable vandalism. I don’t see why any “The ___” title should be speediable, NYB, your bombasity today is unexpected, but neither do I support recreating the redirect. The exact title is the name of a trading business. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
It's certainly possible to restore the redirect without that particular revision. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
If it's restored on that basis, I'll probably speedy it again, for the reasons I stated above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
If it's restored on what basis? If the DRV results in the restoration of this redirect, it should happen without restoring that particular revision. If it were to be speedy deleted again without consensus at RfD, we would end up right back here... -- Tavix ( talk) 21:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Only if someone wants to disrupt the project by engaging in another pointless instance of process for its own sake. As I emphasized above, we don't have a redirect from "the duffelbag" (the more common spelling) to "duffel bag," so what possible reason would there be for restoring and spending a week discussing whether to keep a redirect from "the dufflebag" (the less common spelling) to “duffel bag”? Please read what I wrote above in response to Hobit if you haven't already seen it. From a procedural point of view, it wouldn't be speedied again at RfD, it would be speedied (if I see it soon enough) as being pointless, without an RfD. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Discussing whether or not a redirect is pointless is the point of RfD discussions, and I think it would be worthwhile to have such a discussion at RfD should that opportunity actually be afforded us. You have your opinions on why this redirect should not exist, I have my opinions for why this redirect should exist. An RfD discussion can lead to a consensus on this issue. People who think such an RfD discussion is a waste of time need not participate. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
At some point, that is bullying behavior. Seriously. I know you don't see it that way, but saying "well if consensus goes against me I'll just do it anyways" isn't what anyone should be doing. You were on ARBCOM for years. Surely you agree that no matter how much you think it's the right thing, going against consensus to "right great wrongs" is the wrong thing to do (there are exceptions to that, but they are rare, BLP for example might be a good place to take such a stand). Doing that over a redirect is utterly silly. Maybe I don't know you as well as I think I do from all the things I've seen you write, but this feels really out of character. I keep feeling like there is something else going on here--the heat this is generating is just crazy for such a minor point. Is there something else? Hobit ( talk) 00:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
It's astonishing to see an admin and long-time ARBCOM member announce his intention to override a community decision just because he thinks it's a bad one, without a justification in an important policy not subject to community weakening or exception. If the community feels strongly enough about an admin's misuse of tools for summary action, and calls for the full process to be followed, that is a decision that stands. If NewYorkBrad, or any admin, chooses to defy community will without cause, they shouldn't have the tools. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 01:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
All of this could have been avoided if there had just been better communication. When the RfD was speedy closed, the closing statement could have explained why. When the closer was queried on their talk page, they could have explained why. When the closer commented at this DRV that they were endorsing their own close, they could have explained why. Instead, all we got was (paraphrasing), "I'm right, and if you disagree, I don't care", laced with invective. So, yes, WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT are factors here. It's not enough to be right. Admins also have obligations. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
The closing of speedy delete would have been correct even without the history, because the redirect was nonsensical. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I assume you are referring to G1? The definition is "In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply." If I asked you where you'd expect this to redirect to, I assume you'd say "Dufflebag". That isn't nonsensical. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe that this is a useful redirect. I don't think it is useful, but frankly it ain't hurting anything either. It's been there for years. There was no need to rush and their was no basis (other than IAR) for which to do so. Once it was objected to, the admin should simply have restored and let the RfD reach its natural conclusion. Hobit ( talk) 00:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Relist not a valid R3 speedy deletion, because R3 only applies to recently created redirects and this one was 13 years old. This requirement is there for a reason, it's to avoid breaking any links to the redirect. I also don't think it's that implausible given that Dufflebag is a perfectly valid search term. Don't see any other reason to close the RfD early. Hut 8.5 21:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    There are (and were) no links to the redirect. It is unlikely that there was ever a single such link, at any time in the last fourteen years. If ever someone did create a wikilink to the dufflebag, it's probably a good thing for it to be a redlink, just so they know they made a twofold error: first the misspelling, and second including the definite article with the noun in the link. There's no plausible circumstance where a wikilink should include the the. Even if duffel bag were spelled correctly, no article should ever contain a link formatted as " the duffel bag" instead of "the duffel bag". And all this presumes, as well, that the deleting admin didn't check for and fix articles linking to this redirect, as part of the deletion—why do we presume that JzG didn't perform this basic check? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    All whatlinkshere can show is that there are no links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia. It cannot say anything about links that are in old revisions (which could be reverted to at any time), links from other Wikipedias, other projects or from any other site on the internet. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Here and below in your response to JzG's comment you're setting an impossible standard. Followed to its logical conclusion, your premise implies we can't delete anything from Wikipedia ever, because someone somewhere, at some point in the entire length, breadth and history of the internet, may have linked to the page. It's an absurd bar. And even if some random external site happened to link to this implausible redirect...well, so what? They're probably not watching WP:RFD, and their link would get broken next week instead of this week.
You further seem to have missed the rest of my comment, where I note that having any links to this redirect turn red would probably be a good thing, in that it would highlight places where there is both a style and a spelling error. This is still true even in the wildly unlikely circumstance where a link is resurrected from a page's revision history. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 03:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I didn't say that redirects with links could not be deleted (although redirects should only be deleted when benefits from doing so will outweigh any harm caused, and the presence or absence of links is one factor in determining this). I was simply pointing out that the absolute assertions that there are no and have never been any links are incorrect. As for your second point - possibly it's a style error (depending on context), but as repeatedly pointed out it is not a spelling error. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deletedOverturn and relist. The original speedy was out of process, and there was no reason not allow the standard process to reach its inevitable conclusion. Duffle bag and Dufflebag exist as functional redirects. If this misuse had been caught expeditiously, reopening the process would have been the right way to go, but more than a week later it's just not productive enough to do that. This DRV has become a stalking horse for allowing admins to exercise some residual power to speedy-delete pages in defiance of community policy that strictly limits speedy deletion, and that requires a suitable policy discussion, not a Trumpian announcement of a contrived emergency. That said, the deleting admin's insistence that the term involved is an unlikely typo is dead wrong [2]; it's better described as a common variant for an English term imported from a non-English language; and since the term goes back more than 100 years, the deleting admin's describing this as a "misspelled neologism" underscores the shoddiness of their analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 01:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    No one has argued, as far as I can tell, that " duffle bag" or " dufflebag" are implausible misspellings—and those redirects exist, and are uncontroversial and un-deleted. The objection, which seems reasonable and which has already been described by Newyorkbrad and others, is that "the dufflebag" (or "the duffle bag", or even "the duffel bag") – that is, the word (with or without misspelling) plus the indefinite article – are collectively implausible as a search term or wikilink. Indeed, Hullaballoo, the link you provide shows an instance of "duffle bag", not "the dufflebag"; it's not germane to this discussion. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    The deleting admin makes that claim in the discussion on their talk page. And they're wrong; it's a variant spelling, not a misspelling. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 12:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    The deleting admin doesn't make that claim explicitly, and I think you may be reading too much into his comment. I suspect he was saying that the entire redirect (with the the) is an implausible typo, not the 'dufflebag' alone. (Given that he hasn't made any move or suggestion to delete dufflebag at any stage of this increasingly ridiculous proceeding, that seems the more likely interpretation of his comment.) TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Relist which should be automatic when there is a good faith objection to a speedy closure, regardless of why it was speedily closed. This should even apply to G10 and G12 cases if there is a good faith disagreement about whether the page met those criteria, let alone something as trivial as R3. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
And y the same token nobody will gain anything either, as the result is obvious, and in fact the same is true of this entire unnecessary farrago, for the same reason. A mis-spelled redirect with the definite article and no inbound links ever, left over from cleaning up sophomoric vandalism, is a clear and obvious delete. Guy ( Help!) 21:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
So why the rush? It had been their for years (and years). Why not wait? Or at least revert when asked? Hobit ( talk) 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
@ JzG: the redirect is not misspelled, and unless you have checked every revision of every article you cannot be sure there have never been any incomming links from en.wp, nor can you be sure are not and/or were never links from places other than en.wp. Even if you are correct about the lack of links though, absolutely no harm could have come from reverting when asked (or from just leaving it alone in the first place). Thryduulf ( talk) 01:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Did you argue it merited speedy deletion under g3. I had to remind myself what g3 was... Blatant hoax? It doesn't look like a hoax to me, not even close.
I strongly agree with SmokeyJoe's first !vote, where they wrote " Standard processes for standard things should not be shortcutted without good reason, and good reasons are rare. Closes like this undermine respect fir admins generally.
Over and above the whatever effect the closure has in undermining respect fir admins, it serves as a bad example for less experienced users. In my opinion it is essential that all quality control volunteers, trying to police compliance with our policies, should strictly comply with all our policies themselves.
Sadly, it is pretty common to encounter quality control volunteers who take shortcuts, skip steps. (Sometimes this leads to preventable mistakes.) The explanation those volunteers offer? Often it is a variation of "Yes, I didn't fully comply with policy. I skipeed steps I could have strictly complied with policy, but that would have seriously eroded my efficiency!" I first encountered this in 2005, and, in the years following my first encounter, I saw multiple instances where a promising new contributor, who had been learning the ropes, making good contributions, with the occasional good faith mistake, until they encountered a quality control volunteer who was high-handed, skipped steps, wasn't strictly complying with policy. Sadly, their encounter with the high-handed, step-skipping quality control volunteer either drove them from the project, or taught them that compliance with policy wasn't necessary, so they became rogue contributors, and ended up being blocked.
Guy, I am going to regard this closure as not representative of your best work. As the other guy said, if this was created years ago, there was no rush, no reason not to allow the original discussion to fully play out. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
How do I know? Simple. It started with the definite article, and was mis-spelled. The only reason for keeping such a redirect would be sheer bloody-mindedness. 00:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG ( talk • contribs)
You are mistaken that it is misspelled, but even if it was, that's not a reason for deletion of redirects. There is even a whole RCAT for these redirects, see {{ R from misspelling}}. As for the definite article, that also isn't an automatic deletion. See, for example, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 7#The Google, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 3#The Scott Block Theatre and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 13#The coldest place. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry, I used the wrong pronoun. I should have written "How can we know...". Finally it was offered that the original article described a sexual act, and presumably this is why you called it a hoax. Several respondents have asked why your closure didn't say that, why you didn't say so when asked about the closure, on your talk page, and why you didn't initially say that here. Even so I would like to see a restoration, and relisting. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • WRT "no incoming links" -- various endorsers of the original deletion have asserted the redirect had no incoming links. With a redirect that has existed for years that isn't relevant, because outsiders may have linked to the redirect, on their external web-pages. We have no way of knowing whether external web pages link to the redirect. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Regarding, We have no way of knowing whether external web pages link to the redirect, actually , we do. Google lets you search the contents of links. But, that's a red herring, and doesn't alter my opinion that this should be relisted (as I !voted earlier). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
That's not 100% reliable though - It fails to find several links on my website that have been there since at least 2003 and which I have verified are indexed by Google. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Regarding the edit comment that went along with this (Abuse of process is what wastes time), I agree with you. I suspect we don't agree, however, on who was doing the abusing :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
It's very clear what the abuse of process is: (1) speedy deleting something that does not meet the speedy deletion criteria; (2) refusing to self-revert an out-of-process deletion when asked. If you think that a DRV that matches WP:DRVPURPOSE points 1, 2 and 5 is an abuse of process then you really are not fit to be an administrator. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Oh, interesting. I was wrong. We do agree. Looks like both of use were too lazy to go back and read the full history of who's said what on this thread. I hope you're OK with me keeping my mop. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I blame it on my being stupid enough to be reading DRV at 2:30am... Anyway, we seem to agree on what is and is not an abuse of process so your mop is safe. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if that's a relief or not. I'm a firm believer that if nobody's pissed at me, I'm not doing my job. Please keep an eye on my contributions list. I'm sure I'd do something unmop-worthy at some point. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn There are multiple products and companies called "The Duffle Bag", so I disagree that this redirect is "plainly nonsensical". Also per the process concerns detailed by others.-- Pontificalibus 13:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't, but if you're asking me to LMGTFY there's [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] for starters.-- Pontificalibus 13:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted/endorse. Waste of time -- except for the process fetishists, perhaps -- is right. -- Calton | Talk 00:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think you have actually read much of this discussion, given that there have been numerous explanations why it isn't just a waste of time - not that your opinion about the result of a discussion that hasn't happened is not a reason to endorse a blatant abuse of speedy deletion which has wasted far more time and effort than any other option would have done. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
      • I don't think you have actually read much of this discussion...
      • Don't insult my intelligence with bad-faith, condescending twaddle. "Processwankery" is not a real word, but should be: those "explanations" you tout are pure processwankery.
      • ..which has wasted far more time and effort than any other option would have done Raising this ridiculous discussion was the actual waste of time. -- Calton | Talk 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, and I say that as one who, the last time I was here, linked to Process is important. I do think that the deletion was out of process, and that by following process we would have arrived at an entirely uncontroversial decision to delete. I also agree, as some have observed, that this discussion is a proxy for Some Other Thing. Whatever that thing is, I'm ignorant of it, and am not interested it learning the particulars. I arrive at an endorse decision, because no matter how we got here, deletion is in my opinion the only reasonable outcome. This shouldn't be seen as precedent, or as endorsing the initial decision to delete, but simply a recognition that the redirect serves no purpose. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Xymmax: DRV is explicitly not the place to discuss the merits (or otherwise) of the redirect, only whether the closure was correct. As you acknowledge the deletion is out of process your recommendation should be to overturn, everything else is self-contradictory. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Rather, it should be seen as implicit acknowledgement that the effect of the error on the outcome is so slight as to not justify the effort required correct it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I tend to agree on what the ultimate outcome will be. But I also think when admins use the mop to delete an article out-of-process, it's best just to undelete when someone objects. If the nom is just being disruptive, that's a problem. Otherwise, it's less work to just restore the thing than to have it at DRV. Hobit ( talk) 03:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Xymax: speedy deleting something that does not meet one or more speedy deletion criterion is never' harmless. If it were otherwise there would not be any point to having the criteria and we'd just let admins delete what they want whenever they want. Thryduulf ( talk) 07:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_January_21&oldid=1078419381"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2019 January 20
2019 January 22 >

21 January 2019

  • The dufflebag – The status quo prevails, but a recreation of the redirect is possible. To summarize the facts: The dufflebag was created with vandalistic content, then redirected to Duffel bag. This redirect was made subject to an RfD, which was closed as "delete" after one comment and half a day. On their talk page, the closer then cited WP:CSD#R3 (implausible typo) as grounds for doing so. This closure is contested here. In this DRV, opinions are distributed roughly 10 : 6 for overturning/relisting and endorsing this closure, respectively. This results in no consensus. Now, normally, a no consensus result at DRV means that a contested XfD closure is maintained by default, but that a contested speedy deletion is overturned or submitted to AfD. This deletion is sort of a hybrid of both: it was made in the course of a regular XfD closure, but was then justified as a speedy deletion. It is therefore difficult to determine what should be done. Taking into consideration all circumstances, including that there is no worthwhile history to preserve, I determine that the most consensual course of action is the following: The deletion is maintained but without prejudice. This means that anybody who believes that this is a worthwhile redirect can recreate it. And anybody who disagrees can then take the redirect to RfD again, where, I suggest in view of this discussion, the discussion should not be prematurely closed again. Sandstein 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The dufflebag ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Premature closure, and even as a speedy deletion, this redirect does not meet WP:R3. The duffel bag article lists "duffle bag" as an alternative name, and the addition of a definite article does not make this a clear-cut enough case for R3 speedy deletion. I consider there to be a reasonable chance of this surviving RfD. I've discussed this with the closing admin at User talk:JzG#The dufflebag RfD closure. Also, if this were created as an article (regardless of notability) and subsequently redirected, this should not have been deleted under R3, because it does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects. Regardless of the result of this RfD, if this were intended as an R3 speedy deletion, it should be marked as such in the RfD closure. feminist ( talk) 01:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Relist. I was also confused why this one was closed so soon after it was opened, but didn't care enough to ask about it. There has been good faith opposition to the deletion of this redirect, so the discussion needs to be open long enough for that opposition to registered properly. I also appreciate Feminist's detailed explanation why R3 is invalid. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Relist. The XfD was open for half a day and garnered a single comment. What's with the rush to close it so fast? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Relist per Tavix and RoySmith, who have covered my feelings accurately. SportingFlyer T· C 06:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse my deletion. The sole objection to this appears to be on the basis of process, the sole !vote was delete and was 100% correct on its merits and did not take into account the fact that the redirect should never have existed in the first place. The "article" was created in 2005 as an unsourced slang dicdef, redirected because that's easier than deletion, and has no inbound links. It was not a typo created by some good-faith newbie and deserving of any consideration, it was redirected as the quickest way to fix a problem. It should have been speedied back then then but the redirecting user was inexperienced (<300 edits) and we didn't apply G3 to obvious hoaxes back then int he way we do now. Neither the creator nor the redirecting user has edited since 2006 and it has been untouched since then save one bot edit fixing a double redirect. The title includes the definite article and is mis-spelled so it is of zero actual use and, if created today ab initio would qualify for R3. What is the point of relisting? Who is going to want to keep it? Why would we need a mis-titled mis-spelled redirect left over from a bit of sophomoric vandalism? This is process for the sake of process and is utterly ludicrous. Even listing it the first time was more than it was worth, this is an absolutely slam-dunk case for deletion as quickly as humanly possible. The debates over this redirect have taken vastly more effort than was ever put into it, and that in turn was vastly more than it was worth. Guy ( Help!) 08:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for confirming that this page is far from meeting the "recently created" requirement for R3 speedy deletion. feminist ( talk) 11:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • If you think this is such a waste of time, then you should have restored the redirect and relisted the discussion when asked so we don't have to go through this process, and your suspicion that the redirect should be deleted would then be confirmed after about seven days. The redirect has been existing completely harmlessly for over a decade, one more week will not hurt in the least. As for "Who is going to want to keep it?", some people want to keep any redirect that is "neither new nor harmful". Either way, I see you have strong feelings about this particular redirect, so I don't think you are neutral enough on the matter to be a good closer. You should have simply left your opinion at the discussion rather than close it. Then, when the closer comes around at the appropriate time, there would be a stronger consensus for deletion at that time rather then the current mess we have because you weren't able to follow the correct process. -- Tavix ( talk) 14:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
This is the most stupid argument I can recall in recent years. The redirect is useless. The entire bullshit here is because one person decided that it had to have its X days of people agreeing it was useless. This is processwankery of the absolute worst kind. Guy ( Help!) 20:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
The place to decide whether or not a redirect is useless is at RfD, not here. We are welcome to have this disagreement there when/if this gets relisted. -- Tavix ( talk) 20:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I refer the hon. gentleman to the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram. The correct solution to a waste of time is not to waste even more time. WP:IAR is one of our oldest rules. Guy ( Help!) 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Wow. So much effort to preserve a useless redirect that has never helped a single editor or reader, that was created by a vandalism-only account who liked hoax articles about scatological sexual positions, and that persists only because an inexperienced editor didn't know how to get something speedied fourteen years ago. It should have been cleaned up right after it was created in 2005; it's better than nothing that someone deleted it now. And someone is actually pulling out WP:ADMINCOND over this? Seriously? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 19:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per guy and TenofAllTrades. No reason to go through the full process on this, it'd be a complete fucking waste of time. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 19:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy closes solely to save time never actually save time. Case in point. — Cryptic 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse per IAR, Guy and TenofAllTrades. Valeince ( talk) 20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I don't understand the anger from the endorse side, now with multiple users chiming in with profanity. Someone cared enough about the speedy close to contest it, and since this isn't actually a typo (unless you're referring to the lack of the space?) but an alternative spelling (see [1]) I see no reason to not let this run the entire week. SportingFlyer T· C 21:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
They asked, I told them, and they decided to insist on WP:BURO anyway. That is quite silly. Not at all what I expected from that editor, and pretty close to inexplicable once any explanation is given. Also note that I am English. My school is more than twice as old as the word fuck. I swear all the fucking time. Guy ( Help!) 21:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't find it at all silly that some editors wish to keep a harmless, long-standing redirect. Rather, I find it quite silly that you are denying these editors the opportunity to do so. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Not angry at all. I just find the objection to cursing really fucking stupid, so used it for emphasis. — The Hand That Feeds You: Bite 19:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strongest possible endorse per Guy and TenofAllTrades. Bringing this here served no possible purpose. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Newyorkbrad: OK, how does an out-of-process delete over the objections of an established editor do any good? Sure, this is likely going to end up deleted. But when people ask "why is Wikipedia losing editors", I'll point to things like this. We have a policy for how to handle discussions like this. There was no rush to delete this. It does literally no harm. I just did some looking and I'm guessing that this is somehow part of a larger issue? On its own, the deletion is wrong and (mildly) harmful for no reason at all. If there are deeper Wikipolitics going on, well, great. But the nom is correct and DRV generally doesn't smile upon out-of-process speedies for good reason--it can be discouraging to non-admin editors. Hobit ( talk) 04:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
      • "The dufflebag" is so plainly a nonsensical redirect that it does not require seven days of discussion to establish the fact. By the logic of this redirect, "the" could be appended in front of the name of virtually any topic to create a new redirect, regardless of whether the definite article is semantically appropriate in such context. This obviously is not the practice and could not reasonably become the practice. As has been noted above, the only reason the redirect exists is as a historical accident resulting from decade-old vandalism. This unreasonable redirect with the "the" is quite distinct from "duffle bag" or "dufflebag" --> "duffel bag", which are reasonable and appropriate redirects and no one is questioning them. On the other hand, even "the duffelbag" (with the more common spelling) does not exist as a redirect, nor is anyone suggesting that that redirect be created—which confirms that redirects from the "the" form are unreasonable. While the RfD discussion could have been left open for seven days, it was hardly necessary to do so. I perceive that bringing this to DRV was intended to make a point that it's possible to object to an early closing, rather than out of any legitimate disagreement with the outcome of that close. Reopening the discussion on DRV was not, in my view, a worthwhile use of the project's most valuable resource, which is our editors' limited time. It should always be remembered that Wikipedia's internal processes are not ends in themselves. Sherlock Holmes famously declared that "I play the game for the game's own sake" ( BRUC), but that is not the right approach to our deletion processes. I also consider myself sensitive to editor-retention issues but I can't imagine that the speedy deletion of bad redirects is a meaningful aspect of the problem. I therefore have little doubt that this DRV was a waste of time, and that reopening the underlying RfD would be even more so. Regards, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn for seven days or demonstration of SNOW. There was no imperative to rush this deletion. Standard processes for standard things should not be shortcutted without good reason, and good reasons are rare. Closes like this undermine respect fir admins generally. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Mildly chastise both the RfD nominator and closer for communication failures. It was not a fork. It was speedied for reasons not revealed. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn speedy Yeah, admins don't get to do things just because they want to. And IAR is a great policy, perhaps my favorite thing about this place. But speedy deletion is a really bad place for IAR. Once someone objects, just undo an out-of-process deletion. The problem is that a non-admin should be able to have some form of due process and not just get run over by a single admin. It's about editor retention and remembering that it's a mop, not a trump card that gets played in a dispute. Hobit ( talk) 03:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
No, it's a great place for IAR when the original article should have been nuked as a hoax instead of redirected and the redirect is useless, which this is. In fact it's not ignoring rules at all, it's applying them as they shold have been applied all along. Guy ( Help!) 20:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
There was an original hoax article behind the redirect? Is this hidden history affecting a few admins that know about it? Can someone please temp undelete so we can all see the full picture? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC). I see on rereading, the complaint seems to more about the deletion of the history behind the redirect than the redirect itself. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Without undeleting, because that would be a pointless waste of time, the entire text of the original bit of vandalism was "Dufflebag (the dufflebag)= Pleasuring a woman using feet as opposed to fingers. Also can be used in homosexual activity through the anus.". That's actually one of the milder hoax "articles" created by the original vandal. The vandalism (not a real article) was converted to a redirect by an inexperienced editor a day later, presumably because that inexperienced editor didn't know how to – or couldn't be bothered to – ask an admin for deletion. You want to make sure that we put that back up for 7 days before we re-delete it? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 20:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Thanks, that explains much of the strength of opinion of the endorsers. You should have better temp-undelete, so that we could have read it in the history where no engine would ever read the text. In all my searches on “The Dufflebag” I never found anything like that. That history should be deleted, and I think no one cares if the redirect is recreated. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I'm disappointed that you still think – based on your vote above – that this needs a 7-day re-discussion. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Did I say that? Reviews are important things, and should not be rushed. Are you wanting to rush me into a formal change of !vote based on the last few minutes’ new information? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Yes, you did say that, given that you didn't revise your original "Overturn" vote. This isn't that complicated, fetishization of process aside. JzG correctly disposed of the situation, which required about 10 seconds of contemplation, not a week of discussion. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Maybe JzG should spend more than 10 seconds when summarily overriding an XfD. A better explanation, for example. I note that User:Bsherr’s RfD nomination statement makes a completely different implication about the history, “Was originally created as a fork”. Accidental forks are a reason to create a redirect. However, it was not an accidental fork, and its previous version(s) didn’t match the redirect target, which is a reason to delete. I’m leaning to calling that an understandable mistake by JzG (the evidence of the mistake is this discussion), and that at a minimum a better explanation of the prior content being speediable vandalism. I don’t see why any “The ___” title should be speediable, NYB, your bombasity today is unexpected, but neither do I support recreating the redirect. The exact title is the name of a trading business. — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
It's certainly possible to restore the redirect without that particular revision. -- Tavix ( talk) 21:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
If it's restored on that basis, I'll probably speedy it again, for the reasons I stated above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
If it's restored on what basis? If the DRV results in the restoration of this redirect, it should happen without restoring that particular revision. If it were to be speedy deleted again without consensus at RfD, we would end up right back here... -- Tavix ( talk) 21:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Only if someone wants to disrupt the project by engaging in another pointless instance of process for its own sake. As I emphasized above, we don't have a redirect from "the duffelbag" (the more common spelling) to "duffel bag," so what possible reason would there be for restoring and spending a week discussing whether to keep a redirect from "the dufflebag" (the less common spelling) to “duffel bag”? Please read what I wrote above in response to Hobit if you haven't already seen it. From a procedural point of view, it wouldn't be speedied again at RfD, it would be speedied (if I see it soon enough) as being pointless, without an RfD. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Discussing whether or not a redirect is pointless is the point of RfD discussions, and I think it would be worthwhile to have such a discussion at RfD should that opportunity actually be afforded us. You have your opinions on why this redirect should not exist, I have my opinions for why this redirect should exist. An RfD discussion can lead to a consensus on this issue. People who think such an RfD discussion is a waste of time need not participate. -- Tavix ( talk) 22:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
At some point, that is bullying behavior. Seriously. I know you don't see it that way, but saying "well if consensus goes against me I'll just do it anyways" isn't what anyone should be doing. You were on ARBCOM for years. Surely you agree that no matter how much you think it's the right thing, going against consensus to "right great wrongs" is the wrong thing to do (there are exceptions to that, but they are rare, BLP for example might be a good place to take such a stand). Doing that over a redirect is utterly silly. Maybe I don't know you as well as I think I do from all the things I've seen you write, but this feels really out of character. I keep feeling like there is something else going on here--the heat this is generating is just crazy for such a minor point. Is there something else? Hobit ( talk) 00:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
It's astonishing to see an admin and long-time ARBCOM member announce his intention to override a community decision just because he thinks it's a bad one, without a justification in an important policy not subject to community weakening or exception. If the community feels strongly enough about an admin's misuse of tools for summary action, and calls for the full process to be followed, that is a decision that stands. If NewYorkBrad, or any admin, chooses to defy community will without cause, they shouldn't have the tools. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 01:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
All of this could have been avoided if there had just been better communication. When the RfD was speedy closed, the closing statement could have explained why. When the closer was queried on their talk page, they could have explained why. When the closer commented at this DRV that they were endorsing their own close, they could have explained why. Instead, all we got was (paraphrasing), "I'm right, and if you disagree, I don't care", laced with invective. So, yes, WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT are factors here. It's not enough to be right. Admins also have obligations. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
The closing of speedy delete would have been correct even without the history, because the redirect was nonsensical. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 21:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I assume you are referring to G1? The definition is "In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply." If I asked you where you'd expect this to redirect to, I assume you'd say "Dufflebag". That isn't nonsensical. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe that this is a useful redirect. I don't think it is useful, but frankly it ain't hurting anything either. It's been there for years. There was no need to rush and their was no basis (other than IAR) for which to do so. Once it was objected to, the admin should simply have restored and let the RfD reach its natural conclusion. Hobit ( talk) 00:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Relist not a valid R3 speedy deletion, because R3 only applies to recently created redirects and this one was 13 years old. This requirement is there for a reason, it's to avoid breaking any links to the redirect. I also don't think it's that implausible given that Dufflebag is a perfectly valid search term. Don't see any other reason to close the RfD early. Hut 8.5 21:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    There are (and were) no links to the redirect. It is unlikely that there was ever a single such link, at any time in the last fourteen years. If ever someone did create a wikilink to the dufflebag, it's probably a good thing for it to be a redlink, just so they know they made a twofold error: first the misspelling, and second including the definite article with the noun in the link. There's no plausible circumstance where a wikilink should include the the. Even if duffel bag were spelled correctly, no article should ever contain a link formatted as " the duffel bag" instead of "the duffel bag". And all this presumes, as well, that the deleting admin didn't check for and fix articles linking to this redirect, as part of the deletion—why do we presume that JzG didn't perform this basic check? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    All whatlinkshere can show is that there are no links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia. It cannot say anything about links that are in old revisions (which could be reverted to at any time), links from other Wikipedias, other projects or from any other site on the internet. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Here and below in your response to JzG's comment you're setting an impossible standard. Followed to its logical conclusion, your premise implies we can't delete anything from Wikipedia ever, because someone somewhere, at some point in the entire length, breadth and history of the internet, may have linked to the page. It's an absurd bar. And even if some random external site happened to link to this implausible redirect...well, so what? They're probably not watching WP:RFD, and their link would get broken next week instead of this week.
You further seem to have missed the rest of my comment, where I note that having any links to this redirect turn red would probably be a good thing, in that it would highlight places where there is both a style and a spelling error. This is still true even in the wildly unlikely circumstance where a link is resurrected from a page's revision history. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 03:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I didn't say that redirects with links could not be deleted (although redirects should only be deleted when benefits from doing so will outweigh any harm caused, and the presence or absence of links is one factor in determining this). I was simply pointing out that the absolute assertions that there are no and have never been any links are incorrect. As for your second point - possibly it's a style error (depending on context), but as repeatedly pointed out it is not a spelling error. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deletedOverturn and relist. The original speedy was out of process, and there was no reason not allow the standard process to reach its inevitable conclusion. Duffle bag and Dufflebag exist as functional redirects. If this misuse had been caught expeditiously, reopening the process would have been the right way to go, but more than a week later it's just not productive enough to do that. This DRV has become a stalking horse for allowing admins to exercise some residual power to speedy-delete pages in defiance of community policy that strictly limits speedy deletion, and that requires a suitable policy discussion, not a Trumpian announcement of a contrived emergency. That said, the deleting admin's insistence that the term involved is an unlikely typo is dead wrong [2]; it's better described as a common variant for an English term imported from a non-English language; and since the term goes back more than 100 years, the deleting admin's describing this as a "misspelled neologism" underscores the shoddiness of their analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 01:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    No one has argued, as far as I can tell, that " duffle bag" or " dufflebag" are implausible misspellings—and those redirects exist, and are uncontroversial and un-deleted. The objection, which seems reasonable and which has already been described by Newyorkbrad and others, is that "the dufflebag" (or "the duffle bag", or even "the duffel bag") – that is, the word (with or without misspelling) plus the indefinite article – are collectively implausible as a search term or wikilink. Indeed, Hullaballoo, the link you provide shows an instance of "duffle bag", not "the dufflebag"; it's not germane to this discussion. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 02:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    The deleting admin makes that claim in the discussion on their talk page. And they're wrong; it's a variant spelling, not a misspelling. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 12:55, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    The deleting admin doesn't make that claim explicitly, and I think you may be reading too much into his comment. I suspect he was saying that the entire redirect (with the the) is an implausible typo, not the 'dufflebag' alone. (Given that he hasn't made any move or suggestion to delete dufflebag at any stage of this increasingly ridiculous proceeding, that seems the more likely interpretation of his comment.) TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Relist which should be automatic when there is a good faith objection to a speedy closure, regardless of why it was speedily closed. This should even apply to G10 and G12 cases if there is a good faith disagreement about whether the page met those criteria, let alone something as trivial as R3. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
And y the same token nobody will gain anything either, as the result is obvious, and in fact the same is true of this entire unnecessary farrago, for the same reason. A mis-spelled redirect with the definite article and no inbound links ever, left over from cleaning up sophomoric vandalism, is a clear and obvious delete. Guy ( Help!) 21:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
So why the rush? It had been their for years (and years). Why not wait? Or at least revert when asked? Hobit ( talk) 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC) reply
@ JzG: the redirect is not misspelled, and unless you have checked every revision of every article you cannot be sure there have never been any incomming links from en.wp, nor can you be sure are not and/or were never links from places other than en.wp. Even if you are correct about the lack of links though, absolutely no harm could have come from reverting when asked (or from just leaving it alone in the first place). Thryduulf ( talk) 01:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Did you argue it merited speedy deletion under g3. I had to remind myself what g3 was... Blatant hoax? It doesn't look like a hoax to me, not even close.
I strongly agree with SmokeyJoe's first !vote, where they wrote " Standard processes for standard things should not be shortcutted without good reason, and good reasons are rare. Closes like this undermine respect fir admins generally.
Over and above the whatever effect the closure has in undermining respect fir admins, it serves as a bad example for less experienced users. In my opinion it is essential that all quality control volunteers, trying to police compliance with our policies, should strictly comply with all our policies themselves.
Sadly, it is pretty common to encounter quality control volunteers who take shortcuts, skip steps. (Sometimes this leads to preventable mistakes.) The explanation those volunteers offer? Often it is a variation of "Yes, I didn't fully comply with policy. I skipeed steps I could have strictly complied with policy, but that would have seriously eroded my efficiency!" I first encountered this in 2005, and, in the years following my first encounter, I saw multiple instances where a promising new contributor, who had been learning the ropes, making good contributions, with the occasional good faith mistake, until they encountered a quality control volunteer who was high-handed, skipped steps, wasn't strictly complying with policy. Sadly, their encounter with the high-handed, step-skipping quality control volunteer either drove them from the project, or taught them that compliance with policy wasn't necessary, so they became rogue contributors, and ended up being blocked.
Guy, I am going to regard this closure as not representative of your best work. As the other guy said, if this was created years ago, there was no rush, no reason not to allow the original discussion to fully play out. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
How do I know? Simple. It started with the definite article, and was mis-spelled. The only reason for keeping such a redirect would be sheer bloody-mindedness. 00:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG ( talk • contribs)
You are mistaken that it is misspelled, but even if it was, that's not a reason for deletion of redirects. There is even a whole RCAT for these redirects, see {{ R from misspelling}}. As for the definite article, that also isn't an automatic deletion. See, for example, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 December 7#The Google, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 October 3#The Scott Block Theatre and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 May 13#The coldest place. -- Tavix ( talk) 01:18, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry, I used the wrong pronoun. I should have written "How can we know...". Finally it was offered that the original article described a sexual act, and presumably this is why you called it a hoax. Several respondents have asked why your closure didn't say that, why you didn't say so when asked about the closure, on your talk page, and why you didn't initially say that here. Even so I would like to see a restoration, and relisting. Geo Swan ( talk) 01:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • WRT "no incoming links" -- various endorsers of the original deletion have asserted the redirect had no incoming links. With a redirect that has existed for years that isn't relevant, because outsiders may have linked to the redirect, on their external web-pages. We have no way of knowing whether external web pages link to the redirect. Geo Swan ( talk) 00:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Regarding, We have no way of knowing whether external web pages link to the redirect, actually , we do. Google lets you search the contents of links. But, that's a red herring, and doesn't alter my opinion that this should be relisted (as I !voted earlier). -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC) reply
That's not 100% reliable though - It fails to find several links on my website that have been there since at least 2003 and which I have verified are indexed by Google. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Regarding the edit comment that went along with this (Abuse of process is what wastes time), I agree with you. I suspect we don't agree, however, on who was doing the abusing :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
It's very clear what the abuse of process is: (1) speedy deleting something that does not meet the speedy deletion criteria; (2) refusing to self-revert an out-of-process deletion when asked. If you think that a DRV that matches WP:DRVPURPOSE points 1, 2 and 5 is an abuse of process then you really are not fit to be an administrator. Thryduulf ( talk) 02:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Oh, interesting. I was wrong. We do agree. Looks like both of use were too lazy to go back and read the full history of who's said what on this thread. I hope you're OK with me keeping my mop. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I blame it on my being stupid enough to be reading DRV at 2:30am... Anyway, we seem to agree on what is and is not an abuse of process so your mop is safe. Thryduulf ( talk) 03:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure if that's a relief or not. I'm a firm believer that if nobody's pissed at me, I'm not doing my job. Please keep an eye on my contributions list. I'm sure I'd do something unmop-worthy at some point. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Overturn There are multiple products and companies called "The Duffle Bag", so I disagree that this redirect is "plainly nonsensical". Also per the process concerns detailed by others.-- Pontificalibus 13:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't, but if you're asking me to LMGTFY there's [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] for starters.-- Pontificalibus 13:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep deleted/endorse. Waste of time -- except for the process fetishists, perhaps -- is right. -- Calton | Talk 00:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think you have actually read much of this discussion, given that there have been numerous explanations why it isn't just a waste of time - not that your opinion about the result of a discussion that hasn't happened is not a reason to endorse a blatant abuse of speedy deletion which has wasted far more time and effort than any other option would have done. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC) reply
      • I don't think you have actually read much of this discussion...
      • Don't insult my intelligence with bad-faith, condescending twaddle. "Processwankery" is not a real word, but should be: those "explanations" you tout are pure processwankery.
      • ..which has wasted far more time and effort than any other option would have done Raising this ridiculous discussion was the actual waste of time. -- Calton | Talk 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse, and I say that as one who, the last time I was here, linked to Process is important. I do think that the deletion was out of process, and that by following process we would have arrived at an entirely uncontroversial decision to delete. I also agree, as some have observed, that this discussion is a proxy for Some Other Thing. Whatever that thing is, I'm ignorant of it, and am not interested it learning the particulars. I arrive at an endorse decision, because no matter how we got here, deletion is in my opinion the only reasonable outcome. This shouldn't be seen as precedent, or as endorsing the initial decision to delete, but simply a recognition that the redirect serves no purpose. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 19:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Xymmax: DRV is explicitly not the place to discuss the merits (or otherwise) of the redirect, only whether the closure was correct. As you acknowledge the deletion is out of process your recommendation should be to overturn, everything else is self-contradictory. Thryduulf ( talk) 20:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC) reply
Rather, it should be seen as implicit acknowledgement that the effect of the error on the outcome is so slight as to not justify the effort required correct it. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 03:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply
I tend to agree on what the ultimate outcome will be. But I also think when admins use the mop to delete an article out-of-process, it's best just to undelete when someone objects. If the nom is just being disruptive, that's a problem. Otherwise, it's less work to just restore the thing than to have it at DRV. Hobit ( talk) 03:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Xymax: speedy deleting something that does not meet one or more speedy deletion criterion is never' harmless. If it were otherwise there would not be any point to having the criteria and we'd just let admins delete what they want whenever they want. Thryduulf ( talk) 07:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC) reply
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_January_21&oldid=1078419381"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE