Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Shpants

This deletion decision was nominated for review on 14 Dec 2005. The review discussion is appended below. As I sought to close out the deletion review, I discovered a number of factors which had not been addressed either in the original AFD nor in the Deletion Review. First, the original "shpants" article was used as source material for the article now at Three quarter pants. The existence of "three quarter pants" was substantiated during the original deletion discussion. It's appropriateness for inclusion has never been challenged. Since the contents of the article (at whatever name) were used to create an article that we apparently are keeping, we must preserve the attribution history in order to preserve GFDL. Second, since the deletion, this page has been re-created as a redirect to Shpant - a dictionary definition of a Yiddish word (an article which itself was created since this discussion began). On my own authority as an ordinary editor, I am transwiki-ing the Yiddish dicdef to Wiktionary and replacing it with a soft-redirect.

Having cleared up the shpant page, I return to the shpants page. While there are several complicated and error-prone ways to preserve attribution history without preserving the history of the original article, I find no burning reason to go to all that extra work. Redirects and disambiguation pages often serve as nothing more than mechanical pages to support our GFDL requirements. The article history contains nothing patently offensive or even untrue except the assertion that the word "shpants" is associated with this product. Accordingly, I am going to exercise my discretion and override the majority opinion of both the original AFD and of the Deletion Review discussions. While the majority opinion was clearly in favor of deletion, I can not reconcile that decision with our requirement to preserve attribution history. I am going to restore the history of the shpants article and remake it into a disambiguation page with links to both shpant and three quarter pants. I will include a specific explanation of the reasons for doing so.

If someone really wants go through the alternative steps to perserve attribution history, then I will not object if the history of shpants is again deleted. I also will not object to the re-deletion if three quarter pants is deleted. Until then, however, this seems to be the cleanest solution. Rossami (talk) 07:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

From Deletion Review

 * The following discussion is an archived debate about the deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this section.  

Shpants
Apologies if I am putting this in the wrong place. The page as originally created was a nonsense article about an invented neologism. During the Articles for deletion/Shpants, the article was improved to refer to Three quarter pants, an article which previously did not exist. User:Peyna and myself argued successfully that both Shants and Shpants should redirect to Three quarter pants as less popular variations of Three quarter pants, as they are not the same thing as Capri pants. The votes in the deletion were 5 deletions and 3 keeps/renames. However, all 3 of the keeps suggested an alternate to redirect to 3/4 pants, as did 1 of the deletions. The first 3 deletions were made prior to the article rewrite, and were based on the original nonsense page. Thus in effect we had a consensus to redirect to Three quarter pants. I was bold and simply put in a REDIRECT Three quarter pants, but this was wrongly speedy deleted by the only user who thought that the article should be deleted outright. I propose quite simply for the article to have a REDIRECT Three quarter pants in there. It is clearly an alternate name for 3/4 pants that is in use in that fashion. I suggest that the closer perhaps didn't note the alternates that were given, and may have thought that it was a consensus to delete, when it was actually a consensus to redirect. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 11:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I was the original nominator for deletion of the for the Shpants article. The article that I nominated had last been edited on October 17, 2005 (10:53).  I am responding to this note only because of some inaccuracies directed at me and in the comment above. The note above says it was "wrongly speedy deleted by the only user who thought the article should be deleted outright".  I  take exception to the fact the it was "wrongly speedy deleted".
 * 1) Concerning speedy delete: I take exception to the adverb "wrongly".  I did not do the deletion, just the nomination; and according to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, G4 ("Recreation of deleted material.")   it was a proper nomination as the material went through an AFD vote.  An administrator looked at the speedy delete nomination and did the deletion.
 * I disagree. Speedy deletion only applies when the contents are the same.  The contents were not the same, hence it should not have been speedy deleted. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) AFD deletion: The administrator viewed the vote as a delete.  The re-written article was created in Three quarter pants.  Some discussion comments centered on the term "shpants" as a neologism.  Though some delete votes were made before the re-write, the "neologism" comments for the term provide the reason for the vote and as such are valid delete votes. Not all of the keep/rewrites supported redirection.  Some comments (including my own) indicated that a redirect for a neologism not really merited.
 * I disagree. Other than your comment, the remaining deletion comments focussed on the original nonsense content of the article, not on the name.  You were the only person concerned about the name, hence effectively making it 4:1 in favour of redirection. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So, this current deletion discussion, in my opinion, centers on the merits of including a "neologism" as a redirect. (BTW, my deletion vote does not apply to the newly re-written article, under its current name, just to having an article called "Shpants" for this topic).  I do think this is the proper forum for Zordrac's to bring a discussion on the merits of the deletion/redirection.  ERcheck 13:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't see the harm. There has been agreement to make Shants in to a redirect to Three quarter pants, and Shpants logically means "Short pants" just like "Shants" means "Short pants", which is what Three quarter pants are.  It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that someone might think of it as Shpants.  There was agreement that the nonsense article claiming that 3/4 pants was made up in 2005 by some 13 year old was not encyclopaedic.  However, there was also agreement that the term was a valid alternative to 3/4 pants.  Everyone bar yourself agreed on that. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 14:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Question re: this current deletion discussion, in my opinion, centers on the merits of including a "neologism" as a redirect Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't a redirect simply a way of pointing a different reference (word, phrase, term for) to a single article, so that two or more articles aren't being written on the same topic? If something "merits" a redirect, then wouldn't it also merit an article if there wasn't another article to redirect it to? Or are there different criteria for redirects, like, a redirect is less important than an article? --Tsavage 01:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Amazingly, Shpants generates 8000 Ghits. Wow.  I don't know anything about fashion, but I'd tend to think that merits a redirect, if all those hits refer to the same object. Xoloz 13:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In this case, I'm not sure that the speedy of the redirect was valid, unlike in a recent example. I'm not sure whether this is a neologism or not, but I did know that I hadn't come across the word. The reason for this is that it gets about 11000 Google.com hits but only 54 Google.co.uk hits. -Splash talk 14:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete the redirect; invalid speedy even if the AFD was legit, which is questionable. Would prefer undeleting rest of history as well. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * (I speedied the redirect so of course I'm going to say) keep deleted. Afd consensus was clearly not to have an article or redirect at this title.  Furthermore, those google hits are, so far as I can see, all from ephemeral sources, largely blog and forum posts.  A search of Google Print finds zero permanent sources; this wouldn't even qualify for a dictdef in Wiktionary.  Compare 569 for skort.  If someone creates a legitimate article for slotted spoons at zxyyklskizz, we don't leave the made-up redirect behind when we move it. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Having looked at the discussion closely, only two people are clearly against redirecting (ERcheck and Satori, who both describe the term as a neologism), one person is clearly for it, one person specifically notes that they aren't opposed to it, and the other four have no clear opinion on the issue. How you interpret this as a "consensus" to delete the redirect is confusing, perhaps you could elaborate. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Re mentions in print. Maybe Google's algorithms are kicking up new answers for Xmas: today, the fourth result for keyword "shpants" points to an article in a University of Maryland student newspaper, Sep 26, 2002: Shorts and pants? Shpants! --Tsavage 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Undelete as a redirect. The VFD said nothing at all about such a redirect. --SPUI (talk) 21:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Are we looking at the same one? &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. A VFD result of delete means that the present article (or a largely similar one) should not exist as its own article. VFD does not have jurisdiction over redirects. --SPUI (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. Keep deleted. -R. fiend 15:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Since the AFD for Shpants was not about Shants, I did not vote on Shants.  I see both as neologisms and therefore would say neither merits a redirect - my opinion is that both should be deleted.  The central question in this debate is whether neologisms merit redirects to articles with accepted names.  Not a good precedent. ERcheck 22:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleted for exactly the above reason. Eusebeus 13:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Deleted per Cryptic.  But I have one question:  Why are you oppressing those of us who use zkyyklskizzs? Nandesuka 15:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted per Cryptic, delete the redirect, and remove the references to "Shpants" in Three quarter pants unless the verifiability problems mentioned in the AfD are remedied. So far no evidence has been provided that "Shpants" are accepted terms in reasonably widespread use. (No, I don't think Ezra Dyer's personal blog counts). If it's real, provide a convincing source citation. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Shpants: No hits in books.google.com. No hits in online search of last five years of The New York Times. Four hits, but all irrelevant, in www.a9.com with search limited to "books;" (they are all to books on Yiddish folk culture, and "shpant" (not shpants) occurs in some Yiddish-language passages.) Dpbsmith (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Re mentions in print. The fourth Google result for keyword "shpants" points to an article in a University of Maryland student newspaper (a PRINT paper), Sep 26, 2002: Shorts and pants? Shpants! --Tsavage 22:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted per Dpbsmith's research. (ESkog)(Talk) 17:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the article deleted, but the redirect is not recreation of deleted content: The AfD asked that the reference be removed from the Three quarter pants article, as that had been put in there by the vandal/vanity author.  Procedurally, I see a new redirect as fairly irrelevant and not recreation of deleted material.  On the other hand, the article itself was an absolute bust and absolutely fit for deletion.  It was a neologism, and a silly one, but I don't see why there is any discussion of a redirect going on here, as no one is advocating recreation or undeletion of the article, so far as I can tell. Geogre 17:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think it would establish a bad precedent to allow Wikipedia to be used as a method for the cultivation and dissemination of non-verifiable, unestablished neologisms. As you yourself have said, notability should bring articles to Wikipedia.  Not the other way around. → Ξxtreme Unction  {yak ł blah } 18:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You should simply to a search engine search and read a few dozen entries to see whether this word "exists" beyond some tiny affiliation of shpants fetishists (or whomever those who imagine the word doesn't really exist think is then using it). It's obviously a "word", and Wikipedia, being so open and immediate and all, is a good place to find the...latest in the English language! --Tsavage 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL this is funny. I suppose you're going to say that all the hits for "Shpants", all saying it means Three Quarter Pants, are irrelevant?  LOL.  Just ludicruous.  And now, what, I'm being called a vandal for quoting sourced claims?  This just shows the idiocy of the "deletion review", which just seems to be a forum for admins to come in and pat each other on the back and say "well done" to each other.  This is perhaps the silliest thing that has ever happened.  Just a REDIRECT!  No reason for anyone to get their knickers in a knot over it. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 23:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Relist (I take it this means, put it back on AfD or wherever this got started, so that this can be discussed again (properly).) There should be no administrative sanctions against shpants, as in "somewhat short pants". Specifically, there should be a redirect now, and it should be possible to create a separate article if developed into a separate topic. This is OBVIOUSLY a term that refers to something specific. If we can have the tired "regifting", we can have shpants. Even if you discount search engine hits that point to at least hundreds of instances of usage in this sartorial sense (as opposed to Yiddish), consider the simple fact that there is at least one citable case where the term shpants has been the subject of an article, published in print, in a US university student newspaper (in 2002). Why are we trying to deny the existence of this stupid word and all it stands for? --Tsavage 22:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.  No further edits should be made to this section.