Twoallbeefpattiesspecialsaucelettucecheesepicklesonionsonasesameseedbun (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This redirect was recreated after an RfD which was closed as delete, I initially requested it to be speedily deleted per WP:G4 but admin RHaworth recreated the redirect and fully protected it after deleting it, as well as salting the talk page. I have discussed the matter with RHaworth who has expressed that he no longer wishes to be involved in the affair. PS can an admin please add <noinclude>{{Delrev}}</noinclude> to the page? - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 08:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Hut 8.5 18:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold the drama, hold the review. Special pages don't upset us. All we ask is that you let the RfD stand. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those who didn't pick up on it, the above is a reference to a contemporary commercial from a competing chain. To remove the ambiguity, I think the RfD result should be endorsed, but have no particular objection to a relist either. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I understand CHEAP and all, but Really?? That is a ludicrous search term, for someone to type that in to a Wikipedia search with no spaces and no spelling errors would be miracolous(sic). L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 16:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking !vote, as this appears to be a popular thing from American culture I am unfamiliar with. I do see that vorsprung durch technik redirects to Audi, but the best or nothing does not redirect to Mercedes-Benz. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• relist this is a really weird case. A) the RfD resulted in delete. B) the redirection and protection appear to be out of process. C) This rather long "word" really has seen use as the restoring admin notes and the RfD seemed unaware of. In fact the topic probably meets WP:N as the trademark status and use in advertising of that "word" has seen a lot of coverage in books ([1]). So I'm leaning toward relist. I'd not be shocked if it again gets deleted (unlikely search term that it is) but there is a reasonable claim that the discussion was defective (new information available), so a relist seems like the best way forward. Eh. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally I'd say delete as it was deleted at RfD, the restoring admin doesn't seem to have given any sort of reason and I don't think the outcome is likely to change, but I won't object to a relist. (Even if the word is discussed in books that doesn't mean anybody is going to type it into the search bar.) Hut 8.5 18:07, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per Hobit and per "what's the harm". There are harmful redirects, but this isn't clearly one of them, and the original RfD (like most) was poorly attended, so it doesn't hurt to revisit. Also, L3X1, I'm not sure your age or geographic location (and no need to tell me), but this is one of the most recognizable marketing slogans in the States of all time, especially if you were alive and old enough remember in the 1980s and early 2000s. I don't really care if we have a redirect on it, but it certainly isn't "ludicrous", especially considering that we have a search box that autopopulates. I was able to find this redirect on my own by simply typing "Twoal". TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, the merits of the redirect aside, there has been a complete hash made of the discussion and the resulting deletion hokey-pokey. This is a good illustration of why SNOW closes and speedy deletions are usually not great ideas when a discussion is in progress. Best to just start off with a clean discussion and let it go from there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Relist to do this properly, but I would very much expect a delete outcome from the new RFD as an implausible search term. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Woodward Camp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think this subject passes GNG. I don't believe these sources were discussed in the AfD. Sources: [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC) ~~[reply]

• Comment, I haven't had time to look at these sources in detail, but from what I've seen at a glance they're either articles of dubious independence in local papers, or not substantially about the camp itself. If someone has a look and thinks that the sources are better than that, I've no objection to a speedy restore to draft space in order to keep working on the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:24, 17 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• To help us assess this request more quickly, please can you pick out the four best sources out of what you've provided? Quality is more important than quantity. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I listed them in general order of best to least. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist two new sources from the New York Times that weren't mentioned in the AfD is enough to merit discussion: whether or not the coverage in them is enough to pass the GNG is debatable, but the place for that debate is at AfD, not DRV. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist in order to consider the additional sources. Absolutely nothing wrong or out of process with Lankiveil's close. A Train^talk 07:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to soft delete  The closer had the responsibility to discount the "Just a pointing at a policy or guideline" !vote and follow the WP:NOQUORUM process.  Soft delete addresses the OP's concerns which in turn addresses the community's concerns.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @WikiOriginal-9: From the relist perspectives above I think it is clear that folks think it is worth discussing these sources, so I have re-opened and re-listed the discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]