- Amtrak Joe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This redirect to Joe Biden was speedily deleted twice by user:Horologium under criterion G10. user:Purplebackpack89 recreated the page with just an RfD template and then listed it for discussion at today's RfD with the rationale "Restore redirect. Article was twice deleted by the same admin, claiming it was an attack page. I believe that it isn't. The moniker has been used in numerous articles in a non-negative light".
This is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore - a web search finds NYT [1], ABC [2], HuffPost, American Prospect, none of which are using this as an attack label. Appears legit per RS, to the point where Joe Biden gets better search engine position for the "Amtrak Joe" moniker (without quotation marks) than Amtrak president Joe Boardman. K7L (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore as original nominator per my above statement about it being used often positively pbp 19:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and start RfD G10 is for things that are unambiguously attack redirects. This doesn't meet that very conservative threshold, and needs to be sent to an appropriate discussion forum, rather than deleted again. Deleting administrators should be especially cautious in deleting a redirect as G10 without another editor nominating it first, and even more cautious when they are tempted to delete a redirect a second time, because doing so implies that the editor who has recreated the redirect is an outright vandal, rather than an editor in good standing who does not believe that the redirect meets G10. Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Have an RfD What Jclemens says. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- restore clearly not an unambiguous attack. I'd say not an attack at all. Hobit (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore without recommending RfD. I have heard of this term several times and never was it used to portray him in a negative light. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore - There are no Criteria for speedy deletion that justify the deletion. Although the same admin speedy deleted the redirect twice, the deletion actions were ten months apart, making them separate actions rather than a reaction to opposition to the first speedy deletion by an editor in good standing (which would be much worse). That being said, I agree with Jclemens' post. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore per above. Go to RfD if desired. Note that a wikipedia search for "amtrak joe" gives Joe Biden as the first result. The wikipedia search function is must better that it once was, and these redirects are now unnecessary. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If the person who objected to my (second) deletion had waited more than two minutes after leaving his initial message on my talk page before recreating the page and leaving me a snotty comment, I would have restored it. When I went to restore the redirect (less than five minutes after his first request), I discovered that it was no longer a redlink, but had an RFD template. As I noted on my talk page (the first part of my original response was prior to the edit conflict and the page recreation), I was more than willing to restore it, after a more thorough reading of the article made it clear that it wasn't a attack against Joe Biden (in opposition to some of the other redirects I have nuked because they serve to disparage their targets). I believe in a liberal application of speedy deletion when it comes to BLP subjects, and politicians (especially American, but Anglophones in general) are common targets for nasty backbiting. I think it's better to not have a redirect than to have one which was created to score cheap political points. Sometimes, I err on the side of caution (as I did here), but I'd rather go too far than not go far enough. YMMV. Horologium (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it is fine to err on the side of deleting redirects on the basis of a hint of a BLP issue. However, once there is a single voice of opposition to the deletion, the case should go to XfD. Your first deletion was fine. You second should have been an RfD nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the first one was NOT fine; please refer to Wikipedia:CSD G10#G10. It was incorrect, but perhaps excusably so. The second one, no matter how far separated in time, is not excusable, and deserves to be called out as poor administrator judgment. Defending that poor judgment, especially in the face of unanimous opposition at DRV, simply compounds the problem. Crying "BLP" on a redirect that wasn't even clearly negative in the first place is a worse idea still. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You know, it's pretty obvious (from my reaction on my talk page) that I have acknowledged that I was wrong. I GOT IT. At this point, I wholeheartedly endorse recreation of the page. (Any administrator should feel free to close this discussion at this point and restore the redirect, to make it explicit for the record.) I was in the process of restoring the link when I discovered that it had been recreated, which (at least to me) seems to be an indication that I have acknowledged that my judgement was wrong. I am not going to fall on my sword and beg forgiveness, though, and citing an essay that was initiated by you and is largely your work is not, in my opinion, a particularly convincing argument. Again, YMMV, but I'd rather be conservative (by being bold) and nuke a redirect that might be a slur than leave it there. If you believe that Senator Sandwich or I never inhaled or Ass juice or Hell no you can't or Obamaville or Bushville or Tony Blur or Mr Long Legged Cleggy Weggy or Snipergate or Ronnie Raygun or Rod Blasonofabitch or Herr Gropenfuhrer or Joe Liarman or Rotten egg fart or Hot Tub Tom or Juan McChink or Please refudiate or Wienermania or Teflon Bill or Make no mistake or Let me be clear or San Fran Nan or Oxymormon or Goodhair Perry or any of the many other gratuitous attacks launched by redirects are acceptable, then I doubt that BLP means anything to you other than an obstacle to be overcome in creating a complete "anything goes" compendium. Horologium (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Jclemens was being unnecessarily harsh. That's a funny list of redirects there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
