Talk:ZSZ

New redirect

This redirect was suggested at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 9#ZSZ. The administrator had no objection to creating a redirect with this target. Ego White Tray (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it was just CSD'd. Why didn't you object to the CSD? Why do you think the next CSD will go differently? Jeh (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted too quickly to respond. In fact, I suspect it was never tagged, and the admin just deleted it (but I don't know). Also, an administrator closing a deletion discussion approved of this redirect to this target. Also, directing ZSZ to a band that uses those abbreviations is not "implausible". So, I just presented too very good reasons why this does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. If it's deleted again, I'll take it to deletion review where both the admin and nominator will rightly get trouted. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer: The next CSD will go differently because the administrator will be competent. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was tagged; I saw it. Google search does find the band name on a search for ZSZ, but also finds a multitude of other possibilities. "ZSZ" does not find their material on iTunes or Amazon, but "Zdob si Zdub" does (so one can't claim the band itself is not there). So, yes, implausible. Jeh (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing any admin of incomptence is not a way to gain support. But in this case, I am prepared to admit that deletion was a mistake. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(What is this asterisk usage? It messes up the indentation levels.) I don't think it was a mistake. This appears to be a purely unofficial nickname. The band's own "about us" page, linked from the WP article, does not contain the string "ZSZ". Neither does their Facebook page. Nor is the initialism featured on their album covers (as were, for ex., "ELO" and "ELP"). And as I already mentioned, "ZSZ" does not find the band either on iTunes or in Amazon music (but their full name does). I think abbreviations and initialisms need to have a RS before we allow them to be enshrined as redirects. Are there any RSs that show this is something the band or its promoters, etc., use, and not just something fans made up? If not, is Wikipedia merely a documenter of popular usage now, much like the Urban Dictionary? Jeh (talk) 01:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, "ZsZ" (note the lower case) actually is the name of a band from Cape Town ZA. It's not an initialism. They don't have a WP article, probably not that notable... but at least it is their official name. Jeh (talk) 01:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And the fact that there is debate and discussion is proof that speedy deletion is not appropriate. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:52, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. But look... as it turns out, "ZSZ" isn't even in the Urban Dictionary! [1] That is, it isn't as I write this. I have no doubt that someone will add it now, but this would seem to be a rarely used initialism. Important to fans of the band, but outside of that... Jeh (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

So, you can see above that there is legitimate dispute as to whether there should be a redirect. Also, a previous administrator admitting that deleting this previously was a mistake. Speedy deletion is only for uncontroversial issues, and the above discussion proves controversy. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:02, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, the admin said he was prepared to admit that it was a mistake. Not the same thing. Overstating the points on your side does not make you look stronger; it makes you look desperate. ~~But yes, speedy is precluded here.~~ see below Jeh (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This redirect should not be speedy deleted as an implausible typo or misnomer, because... there is clearly disagreement over the deletion (well, one person so far on the talk page). Jeh (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Objection withdrawn. Speedy deletion does not have to be uncontested. You're thinking of WP:PROD. Jeh (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy only requires that the criteria for the stated deletion have been met. This band does not call itself "ZSZ" that I can see, so this is a "misnomer." It's "implausible" because I find little evidence that it's in common use. Even the Urban Dictionary doesn't list it. Acronym Finder does but notes "This definition appears very rarely and is found in the following Acronym Finder categories: Slang/chat, popular culture". Sounds like an "implausible misnomer" to me. WP should not bend its rules on notability and verifiability for the convenience of fans of a band. Jeh (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact that it's "implausible" is contested, therefore speedy deletion does not apply. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Might all be moot if they deleted the target article. Ego White Tray (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator withdrew the nom, and reverted to an earlier version. Which nowhere mentions the initialism "ZSZ". "Hmmmm." Jeh (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]