Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Let the tiger show its stripes

This appears to have failed to be developed into what it was supposed to be and it seems doomed to stay that way. 95% of it is copied from WP:ROPE. It was created to create a more "safe space compliant" version of that essay, but then promptly abandonded by its creator (who was desysopped and indef blocked due to the discovery by checkusers that they were running an obnoxious trolling sockfarm so they won't be back to pick up the pieces anytime soon) The hope was that this essay would end up being cited instead of ROPE but a quick look at the incoming links shows that that has completely failed to happen. (Normally ROPE is used as shorthand in discussions between admins on the merits of unblocking a particular user. This does not appear to have been used in that manner a single time) So, this is basically a piece of unattended flotsam in project space, it isn't doing anything, let alone what it was supposedly intended to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope, which is substantially the same, so the few existing links aren't broken. This also preserves the history. Three pages (viz. Wikipedia:Beware of the tigers, Wikipedia:Don't lower the boom just yet, and Wikipedia:Essay directory) would need content related to this removed, and of course, WP:STRIPES would become a double redirect that would need updated. On a side note: At least one other attempt exists, Wikipedia:Last Chance Saloon, but it is substantially different. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 08:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a redirect too. I'm all for safe spaces (which is being misused in this instance) and for being sensitive toward folks, but this one isn't using traction and the effect seemed questionable to start with. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~or Redirect~~ It was a half baked idea to avoid an idiom some people found objectionable, but it confused the idioms. The title doesn't match the essay copied. Give enough rope means to give a borderline untrusted person enough freedom to prove themselves. Tiger stripes, or the more common leopard spots, is an idiom asserting the people's nature can't be changed. Completely different. Normally I prefer to keep records of failed ideas, but this one was wrong, and is nothing more than a wrong title on forked content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Beeble. As a redirect it will be a bad redirect, due to the meaning mismatch. It has no history worth keeping. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into WP:ROPE and/or WP:Last Chance Saloon. KATMAKROFAN (talk) 04:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that it is a copy of ROPE without negligible alteration. There is nothing to merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wikipedia:Give 'em enough rope. Not convinced the changes to other essays are really necessary, the index would need updating of course. Andrewa (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I do not agree with redirecting it back at ROPE. Although it was mostly a copy of that essay, "Let the tiger show it's stripes" is not the same idiom as "give 'em enough rope and they'll hang themselves". In fact, I would argue that it imples more of an assumption of bad faith on the part of the blocked user. It has never been referenced in an actual unblock discussion, so it won't break a bunch of talk page discussions if it is just deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.