Wifedogging

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

Welcome to our website. It is generaly simplier version of wikipedia. You will find there selected articles. Enjoy!

Skip to Table of Contents. Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page
Shortcut:
Deletion discussions

Redirects for discussion (RfD) is the place where Wikipedians decide what should be done with problematic redirects. Items sent here usually stay listed for a week or so, after which they are deleted by an administrator, kept, or retargeted.

Note: If all you want to do is replace a currently existing, unprotected redirect with an actual article, you do not need to list it here. Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia. Be bold.

Note: If you want to move a page but a redirect to that page is preventing this, you do not need to list it here. Place a request in the appropriate section at Wikipedia:Requested moves and an administrator will perform the move for you.

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either. See When should we delete a redirect?

Old discussions are archived at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log.

Centralized discussion
Proposals Discussions Recurring proposals
  • Proposal to standardize the use of {{reflist}} and deprecate <references />.
  • RFC on new watchlist feature
  • Straw poll on which awards, if any, should be excluded when assessing the notability of pornographic actors.
  • RFC on amending notability guidelines for Mixed Martial Arts events.
  • Proposal to change guideline on how big a Talk page should be before archiving.
  • Proposal to establish a closure review on move requests.
  • Proposal to enable Reference Tooltips by default
Note: inactive discussions, closed or not, should be archived.

Contents

Before listing a redirect for discussion

Before listing a redirect for discussion, please familiarize yourself with the following:

The guiding principles of RfD

  • The purpose of a good redirect is to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for. If someone could plausibly enter the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect.
  • Redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. Thus, it doesn't really hurt things much if there are a few of them scattered around. On the flip side, deleting redirects is cheap since the deletion coding takes up minimal disk space and use very little bandwidth. There is no harm in deleting problematic redirects.
  • The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination.
  • Redirects nominated in contravention of Wikipedia:Redirect will be speedily kept.
  • RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes. If you think a redirect should be targeted at a different article, discuss it on the talk pages of the current target article and/or the proposed target article. However, for more difficult cases, this page can be a centralized discussion place for resolving tough debates about where redirects point.
  • Requests for deletion of redirects from one page's talk page to another page's talk page don't need to be listed here, as anyone can simply remove the redirect by blanking the page.
  • Try to consider whether or not a redirect would be helpful to the reader when discussing.

When should we delete a redirect?

Shortcut:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

  • a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;
  • if a redirect is reasonably old (or a redirect is created as a result of moving a page that has been there for quite some time), then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate"—since those links might come from somewhere outside Wikipedia.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

Shortcut:

Reasons for deleting

You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met (but note also the exceptions listed below this list):

  1. The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine.
  2. The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted.
  3. The redirect is offensive or abusive, such as redirecting "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" (unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article), or "Joe Bloggs" to "Loser". (Speedy deletion criterion G10 may apply.)
  4. The redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply.)
  5. The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange. (Speedy deletion criterion G1 may apply.)
  6. It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule are the pseudo-namespace shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space. Some long-standing cross-namespace redirects are also kept because of their long-standing history and potential usefulness. "MOS:" redirects, for example, are an exception to this rule. (Note "WP:" redirects are in the Wikipedia namespace, WP: being an alias for Wikipedia.)
  7. If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to itself or to an article that does not exist, it can be deleted immediately under speedy deletion criterion G8, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first.
  8. If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. In particular, redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. Improbable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created.
  9. If the target article needs to be moved to the redirect title, but the redirect has been edited before and has a history of its own, then it needs to be deleted to make way for move.
  10. If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.
Shortcut:

Reasons for not deleting

However, avoid deleting such redirects if:

  1. They have a potentially useful page history. If the redirect was created by renaming a page with that name, and the page history just mentions the renaming, and for one of the reasons above you want to delete the page, copy the page history to the Talk page of the article it redirects to. The act of renaming is useful page history, and even more so if there has been discussion on the page name.
  2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc. In other words, redirects with no incoming links are not candidates for deletion on those grounds because they are of benefit to the browsing user. Some extra vigilance by editors will be required to minimize the occurrence of those frequent misspellings in the article texts because the linkified misspellings will not appear as broken links.
  3. They aid searches on certain terms. For example, if someone sees the Keystone State mentioned somewhere but does not know what that refers to, then they will be able to find out at the Pennsylvania (target) article.
  4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them.
  5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.
  6. The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form, or to some other grammatical form.

Also, redirects are cheap. Redirects take up minimal system resources, so it doesn't really hurt things if there are a few of them scattered around.

Neutrality of redirects

Shortcut:

Just like article titles using non-neutral language are permitted in some circumstances, so are redirects. Because redirects are less visible to readers, more latitude is allowed in their names. Perceived lack of neutrality in redirect names is therefore not a sufficient reason for their deletion. In most cases, non-neutral but verifiable redirects should point to neutrally titled articles about the subject of the term.

Non-neutral redirects are commonly created for three reasons:

  1. Articles that are created using non-neutral titles are routinely moved to a new neutral title, which leaves behind the old non-neutral title as a working redirect (e.g. Dalmatian Kristallnacht → Dalmatian anti-Serb riots of May 1991; Climategate → Climatic Research Unit email controversy).
  2. Articles created as POV forks may be deleted and replaced by a redirect pointing towards the article from which the fork originated (e.g. Barack Obama Muslim rumor → deleted and redirected to Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008).
  3. The subject matter of articles may be represented by some sources outside Wikipedia in non-neutral terms. Such terms are generally avoided in Wikipedia article titles, per the words to avoid guidelines and the general neutral point of view policy. For instance the non-neutral expression "Attorneygate" is used to redirect to the neutrally titled Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. The article in question has never used that title, but the redirect was created to provide an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term.

The exceptions to this rule would be redirects that are not established terms and are unlikely to be useful, and therefore may be nominated for deletion, perhaps under deletion reason #3. However, if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms. Please keep in mind that RfD is not the place to resolve most editorial disputes.

See also: Policy on which redirects can be deleted immediately.

Closing notes

Details at: Administrator instructions for RfD.

Nominations should remain open, per policy, about a week before they are closed, unless they meet the general criteria for speedy deletion, the criteria for speedy deletion of a redirect, or are not valid redirect discussion requests (e.g. are actually move requests).

How to list a redirect for discussion

Shortcut:

To list a redirect for discussion, follow this two-step process:

I.
Flag the redirect.

  Enter {{subst:rfd}} above the #REDIRECT on the redirect page you are listing for discussion. Example:

{{subst:rfd}}
#REDIRECT [[Foo]]
  • Please do not mark the edit as minor (m).
  • Please include in the edit summary the phrase:
    Nominated for RFD: see [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]
  • Save the page.
II.
List the entry on RfD.

 Click here to edit the section of RfD for today's entries.

  • Enter this text below the date heading:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName|target=TargetArticle|text=The action you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for that action.}} ~~~~
  • For the template in the previous step:
    • Put the redirect's name in place of "RedirectName", put the target article's name in place of "TargetArticle", and include a reason after text=.
    • Note that, for this step, the "target article" is the current target of the redirect (if you have a suggestion for a better target, include this in the text that you insert after text=).
  • Please use an edit summary such as:
    Nominating [[RedirectName]]
    replacing RedirectName with the name of the redirect you are nominating.
  • To list multiple related redirects for discussion, use the following syntax. Repeat line 2 for N number of redirects:
{{subst:rfd2|redirect=RedirectName1|target=TargetArticle1}}
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectName2|target=TargetArticle2}}
{{subst:rfd2m|redirect=RedirectNameN|target=TargetArticleN|text=The actions you would like to occur (deletion, re-targeting, etc.) and the rationale for those actions.}} ~~~~
  • Please consider using What links here to locate other redirects that may be related to the one you are nominating. After going to the redirect target page and selecting "What links here" in the toolbox on the left side of your computer screen, select both "Hide transclusions" and "Hide links" filters to display the redirects to the redirect target page.
  • It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the redirect that you are nominating the redirect. To find the main contributors, look in the page history of the redirect. For convenience, the template

    {{subst:RFDNote|RedirectName}} ~~~~

    may be placed on the creator/main contributors' user talk page to provide notice of the discussion. Please replace RedirectName with the name of the redirect and use an edit summary such as:
    Notice of redirect discussion at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion]]

Administrator instructions

Current list

May 23

May 22

William Peace University

This school has changed its name and has begun using the new name on its website. The time has come to delete this redirect to make way for a move of Peace College to William Peace University RadioFan (talk) 22:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Clarification: The institution has begun sporadically using the new name on its website. Most of the site, including the footer on every page, still says "Pace College." There's no rush to make this change, particularly when the institution itself hasn't really made the change. ElKevbo (talk) 22:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The article title should reflect the official title. The institution has made the change. The local media using the new name as is the administration in press releases [1]. While the old name does persist in some spots on the university website, that will change in time. There is no need to wait until all traces of the old name have been purged from the website. The very first words on the website are the new name after all.--RadioFan (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This should be a Requested moves debate, not an RfD discussion. Regardless of which title is chosen by the community, neither of you have yet presented a reason to permanently delete the other title as redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I haven't made a case to delete any redirects because I don't think any should. In this period of transition it seems like a good idea to have a redirect from the soon-to-be/new/kind-of-already-in-use name to the old/still-in-use name. ElKevbo (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Tim Maroney

Should be deleted; originally, there was an article about my friend Tim; it was redirected to Usenet celebrity; but there's nothing in that article about him, and there's only one mainspace link to Tim's article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 21:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep to preserve the attribution history (a requirement of GFDL and CC-BY-SA). The content of this page was merged to the target page in Jan 2008 and remained there until September when it was removed as part of a larger purge of content. I see no discussion or debate to substantiate that purge and while some of the reasons given (lack of sources) are true, others (the BLP accusations) are less defensible. The edit history shows that a number of other edits made by that same user were reversed. I do not know why the content on Mr Maroney was not restored (and do not have the content knowledge to know whether that would be appropriate) but it seems plausible to me that someone might someday restore that content. If/when they do, we will need the pagehistory behind the redirect. In the meantime, the redirect does not strike me as especially harmful or confusing.
    Note: I can also see an argument to restore the title to it's 2007 stub version. A quick google search suggests that the subject is at the edge of WP:BIO. I defer judgment on that option for now. Rossami (talk) 22:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Yeah, it really is quite on the edge. It does seem harmful to me to have redirects that point to articles containing no information about the subject of the redirect, especially when the article in question contains a fair number of vile loons, total assholes, and propaganda robots. (And some good and interesting people.) I think Tim would laugh to think of himself as worthy of an encyclopedia article -- and then he'd try to make sure it was a good and accurate article. --jpgordon::==( o ) 23:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Edo Sushi

This redirect should be deleted as it failes to meet the guidelines set forth in WP:RDR. The target article only has a brief mention of it TheLou75 (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep per the arguments in the "Thomas Doret" discussion below. Redirects of a semi- or non-notable topic to a more notable parent topic are accepted and even encouraged. The topic is clearly mentioned in the first paragraph of the target article. The redirect serves to preempt content which would be unlikely to meet our generally accepted inclusion criteria.
    Having said that, it does appear that "Edo Sushi" is a fairly common name for Japanese restaurants. I have been unable to determine whether they are a related chain (in which case, conversion to an article may be appropriate) or, if unrelated, whether any of the other instances of "Edo Sushi" are sufficiently notable to justify converting the redirect into a disambiguation page. No objection to either of those solutions if someone else is more successful researching the company that I have been. Rossami (talk) 17:28, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

1999−2000 ANAPROF

Page is named with an emdash; since the standard for association football season articles, per WP:MOSDATE, is an endash (plus a hyphen as a convenience accessibility redirect), this emdash version is not needed. Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. This redirect is the artifact of a very recent pagemove of a title that existed for several years prior to the move. The redirect is automatically created to catch any remaining inbound links (whether current, in Wikipedia page history or external to Wikipedia). While it was mildly helpful to bring the title into compliance with the Manual of Style ("mildly" because the difference between an emdash and an endash is fairly trivial), there is no reason to delete the redirect. This creates no possibility of confusion, is in the way of no other content and is not in any way harmful to the project. Rossami (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


Steve Sharpe

Former minor leaguer, didn't play last year and was on independent ball the year before, delete as confusing redirect per usual consensus Secret account 19:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

May 21

Photovoltaic engineering in Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was reverted to the proper article that lay beneath the redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete or redirect to proper target. Redirecting an entire subject to a single biography makes little sense to me. Either we should find a proper target or delete this. Jojalozzo 13:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment. user:RHaworth speedy deleted this under criterion R3 (recently created implausible redirects). However the page history goes back to 2007 (it was an article until mid April) and so it does not meet that speedy deletion criterion. Accordingly I have asked RHaworth to undelete the redirect in favour of this RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Portal:Союз Советских Социалистических Республик

What are the odds that someone is going to ever use this? You have to know "Portal:" in English, but then the long-form name of the Soviet Union in Russian? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. It doesn't seem like a particularly likely search term, but per WP:CHEAP this isn't doing any harm and deletion will not bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Response Per WP:REDIRECT, one reason to delete is if "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." This is tremendously obscure and highly unlikely to provide any actual assistance to anyone navigating the encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep you don't actually have to know "Portal:" in English to access that page. You can just use the generic namespace number. As it is the Cyrillic for USSR full out, it seems like it is the original language name for the topic, therefore not a novel or obscure title. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Союз Советских Социалистических Республик is the original name, the English name being only a translation. It is like having a redirection from Deutschland to Germany.

Sure, it does not harm.

Moreover, the user can access the page Portal:Союз Советских Социалистических Республик by typing Союз Советских Социалистических Республик in the search, and ticking the box for the Portal space, and the user can very well have the search interface in Russki.

--Nnemo (talk) 22:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

May 20

Religious perspectives on dinosaurs

A misleading redirect because the section it points to is all about Christian perspectives, not "religious perspectives" in general (and then only a subset of Biblical literalist Christians). I'm leaning toward deletion, because I can't think of where this might be retargeted to. it also has only one link from article space ( here), and strikes me as a somewhat unlikely search term. 69.111.79.119 (talk) 22:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. This page has an extensive history. It was moved from the original title to Creationist perspectives on dinosaurs in May 2007 for exactly the reasons you cite but the redirect was retained in order to preserve history and to minimize link rot. I have no objection to retargetting to a more universal article if one exists but as far as I know, the existence of dinosaurs are only relevant (religiously, that is) to the fundamentalist Christian debates. Absent a better target, this redirect is more helpful than harmful. Rossami (talk) 00:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Convert to stub the redirect to a Christian viewpoint provides a biased view that religion means Christianity. So, instead, a stub should be placed in its place. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Doret

I don't believe we should create redirects for an actor to one film they've appeared in. This person seems notable for other films too, and should be left as a redlink to encourage creation. I guess there could be possible BLP issues too. Lugnuts (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Note. When the redirect was created, this was (at least according to IMDB) the only film this actor had appeared in. The second one, Renoir, will only be released in the coming week when it is screened in the Un Certain Regard section at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival.  --Lambiam 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Is it standard practice to create BLP redirects to a film a person has been in? Lugnuts (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
      • If the person in question is not notable enough for their own article then it is quite common to redirect their name to the article about what they are known for, particularly if there is material about them in that article. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Can you provide a link to where this is stated in any policy on WP? Maybe I've missed it. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
          • There isn't any overarching policy that states this, but it is common practice and is mentioned or implied in several individual policies and guidelines. Perhaps the most relevant for this discussion is Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event. It is also a corollary to the guidelines at WP:RED that redlinks encourage article creation, that redirects discourage article creation in cases where we don't want one (e.g. not notable or there is an existing article already). At the time of the redirect's creation it was clear that Doret was not notable enough for their own article, and so the redirect was obviously the right thing. If however he now does meet he notability criteria (and at this moment I don't think that is clear either way), then the redirect can be overwritten by an article without the need for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
            • That whole arguement is redundant. He's not notable, but create a link for him anyway? Is it even a likely search term? The correct answer is no, BTW. Lugnuts (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
              • 44 page views in April and over 100 in March say that "Thomas Doret", regardless of how likely you think it is as a search term is actually being used. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
                • I suspect alot of those are coming from 2nd Magritte Awards, the only article the link is on. And now that he's in a second film, there's even less reason why the redirect should point to the above film, let alone exist in the first place. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

  • It doesn't matter where people are coming from, or why, just that they are (as that's the only thing we can know). We know that people are looking for information on him, and we don't have an article to give them. There are three choices available to us:
    1. write an article.
    2. take them to another article that has some content about him.
    3. present nothing but a suggestion that they might want to try searchin.
    As he isn't notable, option 1 is a non-starter. Option 2 is the most helpful, as it gives people somehting close to what they are looking for. Option 3 is unhelpful as the search results would likely bring up the target from option 2 anyway, and the redlink would encourage the creation of an article we don't want.
    So we just need to decide which target is best, and the current one has far more content about him than the article about the new film does (at least currently). So I don't see what the benefit in doing anything other than keeping the status quo brings. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf. If/when he definitively meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies, the redirect can be easily overwritten with content. In the meantime, the redirect provides the reader with at least a little bit of context. (The redirect also keeps the Talk page live so editors have a place where they can debate whether and when he meets the inclusion criteria.) And yes, there is long precedent for this practice. Rossami (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • There's no real context, no talk page for this redirect and no policy for this "long precedent for this practice" that anyone can supply me with. Apart from that, it's fine. Lugnuts (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Context = "he's an actor in that particular film". That's not much but it's what Wikipedia has right now. Re the Talk page - granted, it's not currently being used but if the redirect is deleted, that Talk page will never be usable (per CSD#G8). Lastly, I said "precedent", not policy. Not all precedents are enshrined as policy, nor should they be. That does not mean that the precedent doesn't exist. Many such redirects have been created over time and either explicitly or implicitly encouraged by various editors. More importantly, however, there does not have to be an explicit policy allowing this practice. To satisfy the burden of deletion, you have to show that there is a policy against the practice. The precedent is evidence that no such policy exists. Rossami (talk) 17:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
        • So if something is done from day one and it is wrong, but it's a "precedent", then that's OK? This redirect makes no sense and offers NOTHING to the reader. A better redirect would be to go offsite to IMDB, or to his Facebook/Twitter account, if the aim is to educate the reader to what he has done. Lugnuts (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Well, lots of us would disagree with your value judgment that what was done in this case "from day one" was wrong. Regardless, there are very good reasons why policy forbids redirects external to the WikiMedia family of projects (and limits even those to soft-redirects.) A redirect to IMDB or Facebook is infeasible and inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PETTIFOGG

Even google doesn't show it without the ER added. Inflammatory, very unlikely to be of any use as it is not a common word. Not consistent with neutrality, and encourages incivility. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:47, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Rename to "pettifog" which appears to be the proper verb form, and does show up on Google. "Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging)..." has been the long-standing introduction to this article (2006), so the redirect seems reasonable, and I don't see leaving off the "ER" as any particular problem. "Wikilawyering" itself is pejorative and this appears to be another way to clarify what it means when making reference, as redirects often do, even if it's just as pejorative. In fact leaving off the "ER" seems to drive home the fact that it's referencing the practice and not the person. I'm not seeing a problem. Equazcion (talk) 02:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Now, surely Equazcion you don't have to go to all this trouble to help out my spelling? Face-blush.svg Be——Critical 03:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • rename to WP:PETTIFOG, as that is a useful shortcut. I don't see the double "g" spelling as getting any uses other than as a misspelling, a name (which may or may not also be a misspelling), a username or as part of "pettifogger" or "pettifogging", etc. If this had uses or significant history then I'd argue for a keep, but as it has neither I don't see the value. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Spelling or not, I don't see the usefulness of an uncommon term that is derogatory and would be seen as incivil in use, by definition: 1. Quibble about petty points. 2. Practice legal deception or trickery. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • So basically, it's a synonym for wikilawyering... In other words: In pointing out discouraged behaviors, we do use negative terms. If someone is gaming the system, spamming, or even being a general douche, we tend not to shy away from saying so. This is just another veritable synonym for a behavioral "don't", no more inflammatory than the page it directs to. Equazcion (talk) 18:03, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Rename to WP:PETTIFOG as plausible synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 03:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Leave alone just in case someone misspells pettifog.  --Lambiam 15:46, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Like me. My mother always said I'd rue the day I didn't learn to spell... it's been a number of decades, but now I know she was right... Be——Critical 07:36, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

May 19

Alcohol-related traffic crashes

Was only linked to by one article (however that article was alcoholism - I believe that this explains the traffic to it and the next few days we'll see essentially no traffic) and I have redirected that link in that article. Disagree with current redirect, to Alcohol-related traffic crashes in the United States because the US is not the world. Egg Centric 22:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Note: Since the link in alcoholism has been redirected, no one has visited this redirect. Fine to assume that if external links exist, they are not particularly popular! Egg Centric 14:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

  • retarget. This is a very useful title for us to have, even without considering that as it has existed since 2006 there are highly likely to be lots of external links. The question then is what is the best place, and I think Driving under the influence is probably the best we currently have, although it's more a summary of the laws around the world rather than the effects/causes/statistics of the crashes. There is a little bit at Drunk drivers#Effects of Alcohol on Cognitive Processes, but that article needs even more work. Thryduulf (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. No objection to retargetting but I am not aware of a current article that is definitively better. As Thryduulf notes, the alternatives suggested so far are more about laws than physical consequences. Rossami (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete and/or turn into an article. I don't think any of the available targets are appropriate, but an article on the subject might be, and the benefit of having a redlink encouraging a future article outweighs the problems arising from there probably being external links. – hysteria18 (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

May 18

Ringer (season 1)

Useless redirect. The show was canceled after its first season. QuasyBoy (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. This gets a massive number of hits (>400 in April) and so it is almost certainly linked from somewhere externally, and is thus proving very useful in directing people to the location of the content. It's not misleading, nor in the way of anything or otherwise harmful so deletion would bring no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • As first season was aired this redirect is OK Bulwersator (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Celan-up

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete under G7. — ξxplicit 00:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Unused, confusing and strange redirect to template. I hope that it may be deleted. Bulwersator (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • delete. Not only does this have no uses (all the links are either due to this discussion or mentions in lists of redirects), but it gets 0 hits. This typo is not especially common, nor any more likely than any other typo so there is no real benefit to keeping it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Template:Attn

Unused, strange redirect to template. I hope that it may be deleted. Bulwersator (talk) 18:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. This template redirect has existed since 2006 (when it pointed to template:Attention, which was merged into template:cleanup a few months later). Even after all this time it still gets a smattering of hits, so deletion would have some cost. In contrast, I don't see what benefit deleting this would bring - it's not mislead, in the way or otherwise harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Easier to create scripts/bots/any other automatic processing of wikipedia content (making this things on enwiki requires handling of ridiculous amount of template redirects). Real example of code:
      • without redirects: if text.index(/\{\{\s*Cleanup\s*(|\|\s*section\s*)\|\s*date\s*=\s*[^}|]*\}\}/i) == nil
      • with redirects: if text.index(/\{\{\s*(Cleanup|Attention|Attention \(on talk page\)|Attention see talk|Attn|CU|Celan-up|Clean|Clean up|Clean-up|Cleancat|Cleanup-article|Cleanup-because|Cleanup-date|Cleanup-quality|Cleanup-reason|Cleanup-since|Clu|Cu|Improve|Index-cleanup|Quality|Spelling|Tidy)\s*(|\|\s*section\s*)\|\s*date\s*=\s*[^}|]*\}\}/i) == nil
    • Bulwersator (talk) 23:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
      • The convenience of human editors should always be given priority over the simplicity of bot coding. Bot authors are experienced Wiki<p|m>edians who have the skills necessary to produce code like the above snippet. Human editors' abilities run the full spectrum from equally skilled and experienced to newbies who only know that they need to bring this article to the attention of somebody who knows more than them. By making it as easy as possible for the editors at the latter end of the scale we make it more likely that we will create and keep the contributors without whom the project will die.
        I'm no coder, but would it not be possible instead of hardcoding each redirect name into each bot, to program the bots to read a list from a page that lists them all (maybe even http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Template:Cleanup )? Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
        • it was only answer for "I don't see what benefit deleting this would bring" - I may live with this - but I think that 20 different names for single template is also confusing for "normal" people. Unfortunately toolselver is frequently down, but thanks for the link as it may be very useful. BTW - on plwiki "tech users" managed to kill almost all template redirects (list of all 155, including 20 unused) so I was quite surprised by this problem :) Bulwersator (talk) 00:10, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    • "it still gets a smattering of hits" - hm, I see that it is completely unused (the only use is on User:Meiskam/sandbox) Bulwersator (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Having no incoming links is not the same as being unused. In the case of templates, there are some bots that bypass template redirects when they do things like dating maintenance templates. This means that frequently used template redirects can have no incoming links. Thryduulf (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Is it logged? Is it possible to check whatever redirect is used? Bulwersator (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
          • It will obviously be recorded in article and bot contributions histories, but beyond that it will vary by bot. I'm not aware of any central place to check, as what links here records on incoming internal links at the moment you check it. A "what used to link here" tool would be very useful, but it's not one that exits (or, I guess, would be easy to create). Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. This redirect is not helpful for human editors, and evidently not used, so we should delete it - practically unknown template redirects are simply a pain for bots. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep WP:CHEAP, and "attn" is an abbreviation for "attention", so since template:attention redirects to {{cleanup}}, why shouldn't this exist? Bots already go ahead and replace other redirected templates with other templates, so I don't see how this impacts bot performance if some other bot replaces transclusions. A bot could just wait for another bot to replace transclusions before doing it's job if it hasn't been coded to accept 'attn'. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately bot will bypass redirect only if somebody added tag without a date (part of cleanup redirects is linked) Bulwersator (talk) 15:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per Thryduulf and the anon immediately above. Rossami (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Government of the United States

This redirect is no longer needed. The template for WikiProject US Gov was superceded by WikiProject US a couple years ago. At this point its better to delete the Redirect and let it show as a red link in the unlikely event someone tries to use it. Kumioko (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Why would a red link be better? Better to redirect to the project that replaced it D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: no essential history, no transclusions or significant incoming links, and zero hits in recent months. This redirect originally pointed to Template:WikiProject United States Government, which was deleted at TFD. At the time, this redirect should have been deleted under speedy deletion criterion G8 rather than retargeted. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

May 17

Wikipedia:POLICYPRICK

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was WP:SNOW delete, even creator is ok with deletion. Dreadstar ☥ 03:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure it was in the best intentions, but I think the name POLICYPRICK is unnecessarily inflammatory and isn't likely an oft used terms. To allow users to easily link it this way seem unnecessarily combative and incivil. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete Calling someone a policy prick falls under WP:DICK, and isn't the sort of thing we should be encouraging with redirects. Note that I am not saying that Becritical (talk · contribs) is a dick for creating it, I have no reason to believe it wasn't done with good intentions in mind. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (speedy) Delete. I don't see how this could be used in a way that doesn't violate WP:CIVIL and/or WP:NPA - indeed it's a borderline G10 speedy candidate (I'm not certain enough to delete it myself, but certainly wouldn't object to someone else doing so). It's only about a day old, and has no uses, just a link in the shortcut box on the target and a mention at user talk:Drmies (the other links are due to this nomination), so deleting it wont break anything. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment I created this on a lark. It may be inconsistent with the current Wikipedia spirit, but it is not so historically, see WP:MAJORDICK and the WP:DICK mentioned above etc. It has potential for abuse, but could be used for proper purposes as well. I'm not sure why it would be deleted and those others kept. And here's how to use it in a good way: "I'm not going to try and argue the point per WP:POLICYPRICK." Be——Critical 23:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
A valid point, however I would predict it being abused (i.e. calling people a policy prick) more than it being used in self-deprecation humour. If you wanted to refer to yourself as a policy prick I would recommend using a pipelink such as [[WP:WIKILAYWER|WP:POLICYPRICK]], or intentionally redlinking the redirect, which sometimes can have more of an effect than the redirect. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I don't really have a problem with this being deleted, I just thought it was fun (; It does have high potential for abuse. Be——Critical 00:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
I hated to bring it here but had to B, it isn't personal. I'm still a little leary of your other one as well, but mulling it over. I appreciate your open minded attitude about the concerns here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 00:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, no hard feelings at all. Maybe I shouldn't have made it to begin with (; Be——Critical 02:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - I see the WP:DICK argument, but I think there's a difference here. This goes beyond the umbrella assertion DICK represents, which is using common sense to determine what policy would prescribe in any given situation, and if you don't, you're a DICK. This redirect calls anyone who engages in a particular practice a PRICK. The special treatment of lawyering is unwarranted and I think counterproductive, especially if it spawns other similar redirects to other policies. It should go. Equazcion (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • What I meant was the person citing WP:POLICYPRICK is the one being a dick, and that we shouldn't keep redirects that making being a dick easier. --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, creator is okay with deletion as well.--Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Blindu eusebiu

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was defer to AfD. If the target is deleted (as presently seems likely), then this redirect can be deleted per WP:CSD#G8. If the article is kept, then the redirect can be renominated without prejudice if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Improbable redirect to an article currently at AfD, created by SPA User:Stopdeletingarticles, ... bobrayner (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Suggest deferral for now. The AFD is going strongly delete, and if the target goes, this can then me be simply G8 CSDed. The AFD is likely to be completed well before this RFD would be completed anyway. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Graham Pierce

1. non notable person 2. redir creates need for superfluous hatnote 3. autobio redir Widefox (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Super Tafe

A double nomination. The term appears to be a derogatory characterization of particular universities in Australia — that they are only 'super TAFE' institutions. The pages have vacillated between various universities, and there are no mainspace interlinks; I cannot imagine any way to keep them. In my view, borderline CSD, but I thought I'd offer them here. NTox · talk 05:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete and replace. I agree that redirecting this to any specific university is not appropriate, and they should not remain in their current form. However, it seems that "super TAFE" is a concept (or at least a term) that has some notability in Australia (often >100 hits/month) and as such it would benefit us to have something at this title. That could be an article, a redirect to content elsewhere (Tertiary education in Australia doesn't have appropriate content currently but it would seem to naturally fit) or a soft-redirect to Wiktionary (if there isn't more than a definition that can be given), I'm not sure which would be best. In any case the page history is not valuable or desirable; if a redirect or soft redirect is the preferred option then I would recommend salting. I'll leave a note about this RfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education in Australia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I have now created a definition at Wikt:super TAFE (as that is the most common capitalisation). I stand by my above comment that there ought to be something at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This is a hoax and a nuisance redirect. The Term Super TAFE is a derogatory Australian colloquialism used against many Australian Universities comparing them to technical institutes and training providers, you can see it used against several Australian Universities here:http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=super+tafe Princesstachana (talk) 03:08, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
    • (The comment above was moved into this pre-existing discussion from a duplicate nomination made on 21 May). Rossami (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
  • +1 to what Princesstachana said. This shouldn't be controversial, so I'd suggest this discussion be closed speedily. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 10:03, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Vegetarian sausage

I am rather concerned that if one types "Vegetarian sausage" into the box on the left, one gets redirected to "Vegetarian hot dog". I thought I had better take this to "Wikipedia: Redirects for discussion" because a sausage is not the same as a hot dog - a sausage is just a sausage, whereas a hot dog is a sausage inside a bread roll. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 08:16, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


  • 'I agree with the last suggestion. Vegetarian sausage still redirects to "Vegetarian hot dog" - I am not happy about that, but I shall be a lot happier if the last suggestion is adopted. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:15, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It is usual for the redirect to remain unchanged until the discussion is closed, which is normally at least 7 days after it was nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Exobrain

deletion, no attempt has been made to establish what Exobrain is, or how it connects with the article to which it redirects. This redirect does not appear to be helpful in any way. Argey (talk) 04:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Interesting. According to Google, "exobrain" is 1) some sort of pre-released information management tool, 2) an apparently minor company and 3) a neologism for the idea that your "mind" is no longer limited to the knowledge currently in your head but can be thought of as expanded by those real-time information assets at your disposal [2], [3], [4], [5] and [6]. The current target is a book about that third idea. The book does not appear to use the neologism (and our article certainly doesn't but it is definitely talking about the same concept. It is related to memex and externalism and to a lesser degree to situated cognition.
    The redirect to the book is clearly less than ideal. I could see a case for expanding the redirect into its own article. I could also see a case for retargetting - "externalism" seems the least bad choice so far but maybe there's a better target. I do not see a justification to delete the redirect from history, however. Rossami (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Rossami is quite correct. While it would be nice to have a full article on the exobrain concept as distinguished from a memex and whatever, we obviously do not have one, and until we do, a redirect to the closest article is the best approach. --Gwern (contribs) 18:55 17 May 2012 (GMT)

Untwisted

Delete, as untwisted is a non-notable project with no actual relevance to Twisted, other than that they both attempt to solve the same problem. —habnabit talk! 21:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Untwisted is well known in various technical communities but is now in the process of being merged/renamed back into Twisted, which is why I created the redirect. Enthdegree (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
untwisted is not a fork of Twisted, nor does it implement anything that isn't already included in Twisted, so it getting "merged back" is highly unlikely. It is possible that we are talking about different "untwisted"s, though, as I believe there are multiple projects. I linked the one I was referring to; which are you? —habnabit talk! 17:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

May 16

Damián Alejandro Fernández Beanato

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. Any further creations of versions of this name as redirects to the same target may be nominated for speedy deletion directly. Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

A similar article (Damián Fernández Beanato) was already deleted as you can see in this log and the author created it again with a slight name change. It should be deleted because is a nonsense redirect. PeterCantropus (talk) 22:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

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.

Dark Shadows (Return to Collingwood)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. Rossami (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Misspelling of "Collinwood" and therefore an unlikely redirect. The family name is "Collins" and the house is named "Collinwood" (no "g" in either). Leaving a misspelled redirect to appear as a "drop down" suggestion in the search box only encourages other editors to continue misspelling the name. Crakkerjakk (talk) 20:31, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep and tag with {{R from misspelling}}. Misspelling redirects are a Good Thing to have, as they allow users to find the article they are looking for - the search box accounts for only one of many ways people use to navigate Wikipedia, almost all of which do not offer suggestions. In this specific case, it is very likely that people will say (or hear) /ˈkɒl.ɪŋˌwʊd/ rather than /ˈkɒl.ɪnˌwʊd/, as the difference between /ŋ/　<-ng> and /n/ <-n> at the end of unstressed syllables is slight and the former is probably more common. Furthermore tagging a redirect with the misspelling template removes it from the drop-down list, for example 3rd millenium exists as a redirect to the correctly spelt 3rd millennium but does not appear as a suggestion from the search box. Thryduulf (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment Oh ok. I didn't realize there was a way to tag for a misspelling redirect. As long as there's a way that it can be omitted from the "drop down" suggestions in the search box (and thereby not encouraging the subsequent misspelling of the name), then that sounds like a good idea. Should I just go ahead and tag the page myself? Or am I supposed to wait and let someone else do it? --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 05:52, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
      • You (or any other editor) are free to add tags or otherwise improve pages even during deletion discussions. (Merging content away to other pages is discouraged because it really complicates the GFDL-compliance problem if the final decision is to delete but that's about all that's restricted.) Drop a note here when you're done and we'll procedurally close the debate. Rossami (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Ok. I've just added the {{R from misspelling}} template to the page. If an experienced editor/admin can just check the page and make sure I've done it correctly, then this discussion can be closed. Thanks. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 18:53, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

File:Barn.jpg

Moved unused file to resolve conflict with file on commons Eeekster (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment can't this be G8 deleted? "File:Barn-Bchiu.jpg" was deleted. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Understanding the Value of Pharmaceuticals

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 May 9. In addition to deciding whether this redirect should be deleted, please opine on whether the page history should be preserved, if the redirect is kept. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep for the same reasons stated in the first RfD. And, yes, I did read the full page history and believed that there was no compelling reason to delete it. The original page seemed to me to be a school paper which the author offered to Wikipedia as the possible start of an article. The title was not in accordance with our manual of style, nor was the writing style, but the content was reasonably well written and included above-average sources. Some of our best articles had much rockier starts than this one.
    The page was eventually turned into a redirect (appropriately in my opinion) but there seemed to be a reasonable chance that some of the content was moved into one or more other articles in Wikipedia. Keeping pagehistory helps to ensure our compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Even if there is only a small probability that content was reused, I saw zero benefit to deleting the underlying content. "Small" is still greater than "zero" so the pagehistory stays. Rossami (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect per my reasoning in the previous discussion. Also, keep page history mainly per Rossami, but also even if it hasn't been copied elsewhere it is not doing any harm and remains as a potential source for future copying/reference. Thryduulf (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep-Put simply, the gain, even if it is minimal, of having the redirect outweighs the zero gain in deleting it. In addition, the history should be retained, simply because there is nothing in that is problematic when it exists only as a prior revision; ie, no libel, copyright violations, or so forth.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

4 Women on the Route

This seems to be "self promotion" or "spam" for a group of 4 women. There is no article about these women, nor their group, thus lack notability. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 12:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again... 4 Women on the Route are the folks who were restoring the Kan-O-Tex Service Station in Galena, Kansas, as was explained in the article before this disruptive edit removing valid content and as is explained in these sources: [7], [8], [9]. Not sure what your WP:POINT is here but this is not constructive... and no, I have no self-interest in U.S. Route 66 in Kansas as it's all foreign to me. 66.102.83.61 (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
It was NOT a disruptive edit, because the text layout didn't match the title of the article. I have the right to disagree with this redirect. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I request input from other people! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 05:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, the service station and its environs have received coverage by NPR and appear notable. The name of the company running the place seems a likely enough search term. Huon (talk) 13:57, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. That edit was evidently made in good faith and shouldn't be called "disruptive", but the "4 Women" have received considerable mention in independent coverage about this notable project, so the content about them should be restored to the article and the redirect kept. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

May 15

???? (Nintendo character)

I am recommending deletion. This redirect is confusing to me. I do not know anything about this character except it is apparently an alias for "Doopliss the Duplighost." This redirects to an existing article, but a nonexistent section. Either this redirect should be deleted or someone should re-include information on "Doopliss the Duplighost" in the destination article. Since this character appears to be a minor one and is not significant enough to have a place in the larger article, I am recommending deletion. Randomizer3 (talk) 15:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

  • This redirect was created (then at the title ????) as the result of this May 2005 deletion discussion. The redirect itself was later moved as the result of this RfD debate. The target article had content on this character until July 2005 when it and a large block of other content was removed without explanation by an anon editor. Subsequent edits suggest that the content was moved and not simply stricken from the article. "Doopliss" does not appear to be on any current page in Wikpedia (though that title does also redirect to this title) but it may be restored. The redirect itself seems harmless to me and is not in the way of any other content. Keep in order to be sure that we are living up the the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. Rossami (talk) 23:09, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Apparently, the restore happened sooner than I expected. I went back to add the link to my internal search and now get a hit for "Doopliss" on True names in popular culture. The reference is fairly trivial, though, so the current target is arguably less bad. Rossami (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

May 13

Jay Abraham

An IP wonders "Why would this link to fedex....?" There appears to be no reason for this redirect. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Originally linked because he had quite a lot to do with Fedex's marketing. Jay Abraham really should have his own entry - he meets notability criteria for his two published books alone - but as he's very commercial I didn't fancy the accusations that I was somehow doing this commercially or the extra notability criteria that it would attract. JASpencer (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Turn into article. (Is there a verb for that?) With a cursory Google search, I can find a little on Jay Abraham. I'd say he meets the notability guideline, as there are some independent sources that cover him or his works. It should be possible to write at least a small article about him, and that's more fitting than a redirect to FedEx. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

May 12

Kristina Abernathy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

This was already discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_20#Kristina_Abernathy_.28meteorologist.29 and the result was delete. This article is a duplicate of the one discussed. ChadH (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per the linked discussion (ideally this would have been discussed as part of that discussion!). It is worth noting that this is not a recreation - indeed this was created as an article in 2005 but had become a redirect by the time Kristina Abernathy (meteorologist) was created as another bio for the same person in 2007. This doesn't fit any of the speedy deletion criteria, but I would not object to a snow close. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
I didn't realize during the first discussion that there were two articles/redirects for the same person! What a mess! ChadH (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - same reasons covered in the link provided. --V2Blast (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Poky

"Poky", according to wikt:poky has a number of meanings, none of which I can find have any connection to Mákina, a genre of hardcore techno music originating in Spain. I suggest retargetting this to the disambiguation page at Pokey, as that is an alternative spelling and/or plausible typo or misspelling for several of the meanings there. See also the #Pokiest discussion lower down this page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Retarget to The Poky Little Puppy - "Poky" is the correct spelling for the name of the titular character in the book The Poky Little Puppy. A correct spelling should be privileged over a misspelling; Pokey can be added in a hatnote on that article. Neelix (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Spanish Wikipedia has separate articles about Mákina and Poky, and "Poky" was mentioned in the English Mákina article when the redirect was created - it was added in September 2007 and removed in May 2010. It's likely that the names refer to similar but not identical genres, although "Poky" is probably a neologism or otherwise not notable. Peter E. James (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate with a link to wiktionary, pokie and pokey, and Poky Little Puppy. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages do not list other disambiguation pages as entries; only Poky Little Puppy is a valid entry. The other two links can appear in a hatnote on that article. Neelix (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages do list other disambiguation pages as entries or (more usually) see alsos. This is normally only done when a combined disambiguation page would be too large or the intersection is only for a small subset of entries - see Fox (disambiguation) for examples of other disambiguation pages as entries and as see alsos. I don't think this is needed in this case, indeed I think one disambiguation page covering Poky, Pokey and Pokie would suffice - for example the Australian slang for slot machine seems to be used with all three spellings. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
A merged dab page is fine by me. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
A hatnote of that type would miss the wiktionary entry. My disambiguation is essentially a softredirect to wiktionary expanded with options from wikipedia. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Wiktionary links are nice add-ins on disambiguation pages, but they aren't sufficiently important to justify the existence of a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages require multiple non-disambiguation-page article entries, and there is only one valid entry for "Poky". Neelix (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
That is not correct. Since "pokey", "poky" and "pokie" are spelling variants, they are all three valid entries. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Spelling variants of what? None of the entries on the Pokey and Pokie disambiguation pages could be referred to as "Poky" except as a misspelling. Also, our disambiguation guidelines state that links to other disambiguation pages should only be included in a "See also" section. In referring to existing articles on Wikipedia, the term "Poky" is not ambiguous. Neelix (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
According to Wikt:poky, the slot machine meaning that appears on both pokey and pokie disambigs can be spelled "poky" as well. The disambig page style guidelines are just that, guidelines, and they are frequently not adhered to when an alternative presentation makes the disambig more useful. Indeed the whole reason we have set index articles is that the dab page guidelines frequently do not fit the purpose of making it easy for readers to find articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Expand to disambiguation page - If there are multiple valid article entries for a disambiguation page, the guidelines aren't against creating one. A disambiguation page should be created with Slot machine and The Poky Little Puppy as the two main entries, a link to the Wiktionary article, and a "See also" section linking to the other disambiguation pages. Neelix (talk) 15:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

John Bremerton

This should be deleted, it only exists because an article was created with the wrong title, apparently unrelated to the topic. Peter E. James (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Girls who doesn't age

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete girls who doesn't age, keep girl who doesn't age. Jafeluv (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Pretty much useless redirects, I can't imagine anyone searching for "girl who doesn't age". No incoming links to either redirect. The first one is even misspelled. JIP | Talk 10:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Girl who doesn't age. This is a plausible search term for someone who has seen/heard about Brooke Greenberg but who can't remember her name (and it seems that there have been a couple of documentaries about her), and the stats show it is used. Normally I'd recommend retargetting to the article about the syndrome/condition/disease/whatever, but from reading the article it seems that her condition is unique and known only as "Syndrome X" - a disambiguation page that links back to this target. With no formal name and no other known sufferers it isn't likely that a separate article will be created any time soon. Delete the misspelling Girls who doesn't age though as that isn't a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete misspelling, keep correct spelling. Kaldari (talk) 20:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Dhindo water

No incoming links, DuckDuckGo finds nothing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Being an orphan is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Remember that in a perfect world, they would all be orphans.
    That said, I can find no reference that connects dhindo (a Nepalese boiled grain similar to polenta) to the concept of "tea". Delete unless someone can present a plausible connection between these two concepts. Rossami (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Response Why would this be true: in a perfect world, they would all be orphans? I only mention incoming links to say that there is nothing else on en.wp that references it--I don't know what this is and it has no relationship to the rest of the content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
      • The adage that "In a perfect world, all redirects would be orphans" is a way of saying that if this were a traditional encyclopedia with static content and some sort of "complete date", all our pages would be perfectly edited and all links would directly point to the pages where they belong, either through piping or renaming in the article using the link. Nevertheless, redirects can be very valuable, serving to preserve edit history, aid in searching, resolve notability issues, etc. In that perfectly-edited Wikipedia, no redirect would have any active inbound links. There are good reasons why redirects will never all be orphaned in the real Wikipedia (and several good reasons why we should not even try) but it is a general statement that being "unused", that is, having no inbound links, is not a sufficient reason to delete a redirect. If this title really did have a relationship with tea (say, an obscure synonym or slang alias), we would keep the redirect even if nothing linked to it. Rossami (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Response Ah, that's clearer--hence, I added a search as well. The simple lack of incoming links is (as you pointed out) insufficient, but furthermore, I can't find anyone actually using this term. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
          • And Rossami agrees with you. You provided two arguments for deletion (1. nothing links to it. 2. A search shows no evidence of use), Rossami's comment was that 1 is not a valid reason to delete but, as he also cannot find any use, reason 2 is valid and applicable. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Banking in Brazil

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Commenters are unanimous in calling for deletion, as this includes the redirect's creator I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW and/or WP:CSD#G7. Note that as I took part this discussion, I am happy for anyone to undo this closure if they feel it inappropriate (just drop a note on my talk page if you do, you don't need to wait for a response). Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The redirect constitutes self-promotion of Banco do Brasil also might cause confusion. Brazil have more Banks, for example: Bradesco, Itaú, Banco_Safra, Banco do Brasil. 200.144.24.91 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Procedural note: I came across the above attempt by an IP to nominate this redirect for discussion [10], due to a misunderstanding of proper listing procedure, the attempt was reverted and it was never successfully listed. As it appears to be a good faith RfD request, I am listing it on their behalf. Monty845 03:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. This should be an article on the banking system in Brazil (c.f. Banking in Argentina and others) that we don't currently have. A redlink will encourage its creation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom or redir to Category:Banking in Brazil. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete for being self-promotion (and because if it does exist, it should be in the form Thryduulf mentioned). --V2Blast (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as self-promotion and to encourage a potential article through the red link.---Lenticel (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per Thryduulf, sorry I hadn't realised I had erred when I first created the redirect, and I note that delete seems like consensus, how long does this nom have to stay open before that is actioned ? EdwardLane (talk) 09:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Cal Poly Mustangs

Redundant as Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Mustangs already exists as a redirect. It's a redirect to a redirect!-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  03:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Double-redirects get fixed by updating them, not by deleting. "Redundant" is not a reason to delete a redirect, especially one as plausible as the team's common name. Rossami (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Either way, "Cal Poly Mustangs," not "Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Mustangs" is the nationally accepted name of the school's athletic teams, per ESPN and Yahoo!. The differentiation is only necessary when referring to Cal Poly Pomona. Kithira (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Agree with Kithira. Every single article title and category name for Cal Poly SLO uses "Cal Poly Mustangs", not "Cal Poly San Luis Obispo". Differentiation is not needed due to the fact that category trees and articles' prose clearly expounds upon the school and teams in question. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Pokiest

Meaningless redirect, suggest a SNOW delete. Too old for Speedy R3. . Moved here from AfD, for which it was inappropriately nominated-- see discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Pokiest DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - This is in no way a meaningless redirect. "Pokiest" is a word which, depending on the context, can mean either "fastest" or "slowest," and so Speed is the most appropriate target for the redirect. "Pokiest" is a valid search term; at the very least, it should be kept as a soft redirect to Wiktionary, but an internal redirect is preferable because we have an article on the relevant subject. Neelix (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
A redirect to the definition page at Wiktionary would be more useful. Although there is an article on a relevant subject for one of the definitions (and possibly another that isn't mentioned there), it isn't a synonym for the title and that page doesn't (and probably shouldn't) contain any information about the word "pokiest". Peter E. James (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Neelix, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it doesn't matter if the definition for the word doesn't appear at speed. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:RFD#DELETE per 1,2, and 8. Pokiest is likely most useful as a search term. If users arrive at speed and never see the word 'pokiest' then they will wonder why the hell they ended up at speed. Even worse because pokiest isn't even an obcure synonym for speed, its a synonym to fastest or slowest and niether fastest nor slowest redirect to speed. Worst redirect ever! --Joshuaism (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. I've only heard the word used to mean "smallest, most cramped" (etymology 3 at wikt:poky), however neither that nor the "slowest" meaning can support an article. The stats show its a page that it used and so taking our readers to Wiktionary is the best course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. No real home for it on WP. I think I am cool with a soft redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as per the nomination (though I could, with difficulty, be convinced to accept a redirect to wiktionary). --V2Blast (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any reason why deletion would be preferable to soft redirection to Wiktionary. Why do you think that it is? Neelix (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Despite popular belief, we don't actually need to handle every possible word and phrase in the English language. If someone expects there to be an encyclopedia article on "pokiest" they are clearly deranged :) Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, why would deletion be preferable to soft redirection to Wiktionary? Neelix (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

May 11

Brazilian destroyer escort Bauru (Be3)

The titles need changing as Bauru is Be4 and Bracui was Be3. But better would be Bauru (D 18/U 28/Be 4) and Bracui (D 23/U 31/Be 3) Davidships (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. The titles may be technically incorrect but they point the reader to the proper article where the correct information is presented. Many redirects are from incorrect titles - that's the entire point of {{R from misspelling}} for example. Tag these two with {{unprintworthy}} and go ahead and create new redirect that have the correct titles. Rossami (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Spudz

I think this redirect should be deleted because there is nothing in the article to suggest that the Tottenham Hotspurs are referred to as Spuds or Spudz. ~Crazytales (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm tempted to say "delete as overlooked-vandalism" but the creator's contribution history is too thin to confirm that assessment. I can find no reliable evidence that connects these too concepts. There is a cleaning product called "Spudz" but it does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Perhaps retarget to Spuds MacKenzie (I thought the dog's name was spelled with a "z" in the first place so it would be a plausible typo). Failing that, delete. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • What about retargeting to Spud (disambiguation) ? ~Crazytales (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I stand corrected. Retarget to the disambiguation page makes sense to me, especially if that page is updated with a reference to the pejorative below. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • This isn't vandalism. "Spuds" is used as a very mildly derogatory rendering of the club's nickname "Spurs" - I think most often by Gooners. See this Google Groups search for example uses - the "s" spelling is more common, but the "z" spelling does occur [11]. I can't find anything in reliable sources, but given the context in which the term is used that really doesn't surprise me (the most likely place for it to be I guess would be fanzines and matchday programmes, but they don't seem to get archived online anywhere that Google knows about). My recommendation is thus keep or retarget, with a very weak preference for the former. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Call My Name (song)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retarget to disambiguation page. Jafeluv (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

It's an unnecessary and wrong disambiguation article. The official one is "Call My Name (Cheryl Cole song)", because several other articles on wikipedia are called "Call My Name", therefore Cheryl Cole is needed in order to disambiguate. "Call My Name (song)" should be deleted to avoid confusion. Aaron • You Da One 16:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

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.

Mandel (nut)

The term "Mandel" does not occur in the almond article. Dweller (talk) 14:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

  • The only use of mandel in the sense of almond is in Mandel bread, afaik, but I am not a native speaker. Other than that it is just the german word for almond. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per {{r from other language}}. Also, Benoit Almondbread? ~Crazytales (talk) 17:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • As almond already has a mass of foreign language wikilinks, why is this redirect useful? Which German-speaker is going to search Wikipedia for "Mandel (nut)", as opposed to de:Mandel or Almond? --Dweller (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Google returns a reasonable number of english-language references to "mandel" in combination with "nut". While the word origin is German, it is not in exclusive use by german speakers and it is by no means obvious to a casual reader that the word is german (so they would never know to check de:Mandel instead). The redirect appears to have been created in good faith and is not in the way of any other content. Tag with {{r from other language}} sounds like a good idea, though. Rossami (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Would that be because of the Jewish food "Mandel"s, which are a type of soup nut? --Dweller (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

May 10

Uniform motion

Points to a nonexistent section, the exact text "uniform motion" doesn't appear on the page it points to, and the topic may warrant a article all by it's self. It should be replaced with an article or deleted or pointed was where useful. Tideflat (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Stubify. Hmm, this gets a lot of hits and we really ought to have something at this title. Kinematics isn't brilliant as you say (and quickly goes over my head), the only use of "uniform" on that page are the caption of an image describing "nonuniform circular motion" (I'm guessing that's the opposite of what "uniform motion" is) and the Kinematics#Kinematics of constant acceleration section, which is both a scary looking place to arrive and this Reference Desk question implies is not the same sort of motion anyway. Motion (physics) is an obvious possible target, but the word "uniform" is not used at all on that page and there is no section there that is obvious (to my distinctly nonspecialist eyes) as being relevant. Constant motion redirects to an article about a progressive metal album (it's the title of a track from the album), and Constant Speed (lowercase doesn't exist) takes you to Speed which is a very lightweight article that doesn't really deal with the topic. I'm not sure what to recommend here to be honest - writing a stub would probably be good, possibly the best thing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Stubbed Alright I have written a stub. I would like someone to check it over and correct problems. It needs to be bigger, but I didn't find more info on the web. Tideflat (talk) 03:55, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget to Kinematics#Kinematics_of_constant_acceleration. Thryduulf, you say that's "a scary looking place to arrive", but it's simply what the subject refers to. You can't really fault an article/section for involving math when it's dealing with a physics topic. Instead of creating a stub, we should focus on improving the clarity of this section. The fact that this section isn't explained spectacularly doesn't merit an additional article on the same subject. 786b6364 (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
    • If the stub that has been written is expandable at all, even if just to a slightly longer paragraph, that does a better job of explaining what uniform motion is than the kinematics article. Yes it's a physics topic that requires maths, but for the non-specialist it's better to have a non-frightening introduction with a link or progression to the formulas rather than arriving there unexpectedly. Thryduulf (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
      • What about retargeting to Acceleration#Uniform_acceleration? It has a bit more explanation and less math, and so perhaps looks friendlier to the non-specialist? 786b6364 (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
        • I disagree with that as uniform motion is when an object is not accelerating. Tideflat (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
          • Ah, sorry, you appear to be correct. I was thinking of it as constant acceleration rather than no acceleration, but that's not quite right. So then, how about Newton's laws of motion#Newton's first law? It has plenty of explanation, only one equation, uses the phrase "uniform motion" three times, and is about the correct subject (namely, motion with no acceleration). 786b6364 (talk) 09:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Vito Palazzolo

Delete. Vito Palazzolo is not the same person as Vito Roberto Palazzolo and the latter is certainly not the person that is convicted of the murder of Giuseppe Impastato, which is the current redirect. This is a serious mistake involving WP:BLP. DonCalo (talk) 18:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I created the page because a news source about him just used the name "Vito Palazzolo" throughout and when I typed in http://enwp.org/Vito_Palazzolo I saw that there was nothing. (I don't usually use the Search box.) Many other sources seem to just call him Vito Palazzolo as well. If it's going to cause confusion I have no objection to deleting the redirect but I think there should be a way to indicate that there are two people with this name. For now, Ive removed the link on Giuseppe Impastato and left the redirect in place. ☮Soap☮ 19:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • If there is a second Vito Palazzolo that is notable enough for an article on him, then converting the redirect to a disambiguation is a definite option. If the current target is the only person with this name that is notable enough for an article, then the current redirect is proper, no matter how many non-notable people in the world have the same name. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Vito Roberto Palazzolo and Vito Palazzolo are two different persons although they are both members of the Mafia. However, they are sometimes confused, and a murder committed by one is attributed to the other. In this case it seems that separating the two is paramount. Since Vito Palazzolo is not as notable to deserve an article, the best option is to delete Vito Palazzolo to avoid confusion, imho. - DonCalo (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. As TexasAndroid notes, it does not matter how many non-notable "Vito Palazzolo"s there are in the world. If they are non-notable, then they have no impact on the encyclopedia. We disambiguate to help readers sort between existing encyclopedia articles so they can find the content they need. If there is no alternate content on a topic, then there is nothing to disambiguate. And omission of a middle name is an entire plausible reason to create a redirect.
    By way of comparison, whitepages.com reports that there are 36 people with the name "Charles Manson". Based on the reported location, none of them are the Charles Manson. There are also a number of people named "Charles Mansen". Being non-notable, none of them have any impact on the lack of disambiguation of either the Charles Manson article or the Charles Mansen redirect. WP:BLP does not apply. Rossami (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per TexasAndroid and Rossami, and add a hatnote for Giuseppe Impastato to Vito Roberto Palazzolo. The latter is I think quite clearly the primary topic, but a reader could also conceivably looking for the guy convicted of murder. – hysteria18 (talk) 03:40, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Zad68/MJ history sources

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. BencherliteTalk 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Renamed my own user page, unneeded Zad68 (talk) 17:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

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.

Operation Fobos-Gone

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, G3 by User:Boing!_said_Zebedee. Lenticel (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Include:

  • OpFobosGone
  • Operation Fobos-Razorenny
  • Operation Phobos-Gone

These redirects were created by Starkiller88 (talk · contribs) as part of a series of seemingly disruptive edits to suggest the activist group Anonymous intended to target Russian organisations linked with the failed Fobos-Grunt space mission. Whenever adding the claim to Anonymous (group) or Fobos-Grunt it has always been either completely unsourced, or supported only by self-published, allegedly primary, sources, whose veracity cannot be established. Secondary or tertiary coverage, or any coverage by reliable sources, is non-existent, so these redirects are in all probability a hoax. W. D. Graham 15:36, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

They are not disruptive. A Twitter account for Operation Phobos-Gone has been established. I'm certain that it will happen as this operation may do some vigilante actions on "those responsible" for the space mission failures, such as Fobos-Grunt recently. I think it will be different than any operation Anonymous have done in the past. So different that they will not get into trouble with any law enforcement agencies in any way. I also think Anonymous will do what the Russian president Dmitry Medvedev had suggested in November 2011 following the launch fiasco of the Mars moon probe – punishing and criminally prosecuting those responsible space officials. Probe's main contractor NPO Lavochkin's officials were punished for not taking any form of cosmic radiation while designing computer systems. These punishments aren't enough, because a few days later, an official failure report saying a "programming error" which caused a simultaneous reboot of the computer's main system. This is perhaps a cumulation of being underfunded, lack of testing, lack of quality control and corruption. I feel Anonymous' vigilante acts based on these might help. Their plan is to need everyone dedicated to the Phobos-Grunt mission, to act and make sure that this failure will not happen again and how ridiculous it was for the Russian organizations to "deprove themselves". The goal is to make the organizations take notice of these failures and to force them to take notice and to prevent them. The more we focused on them in a way that doesn't get them into trouble, the harder it will be for them to ignore the issue. On a side note, emailing the Russian Federal Space Agency would be next to useless as they have made up their minds upon reaching an agreement for the European Space Agency ExoMars program's inclusion, thus postponing any future sample return mission to Phobos. Or, defacing or DoSing any website of Russian organizations linking to the Fobos mission would be very useless and risky. The operation encourage its participants to focus their energy on the matter instead. This should be left out as they might happen sometime soon. Starkiller88 (talk) 18:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

a) Since when has Twitter been a reliable source, b) this is not notable or significant because nothing has come of it, and there is no coverage of it in the media or other reliable sources, c) most of your argument to keep this seems to be based on your opinion that such a campaign "might help", which is not a valid reason not to delete something and d) we can always restore them if something ever actually comes of it, or if you can provide proof that this is not just some hoax which you, or somebody else, has just made up. Out of interest, how did you actually come across the pastebin links; it's strange that anyone would be able to find them without knowing what to look for. --W. D. Graham 18:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
That's one thing is certain. Operation Phobos-Gone by Anonymous has started because of BatteryIncluded's statements that Fobos-Grunt will not be repeated in any name or form. As of right now, the Fobos-Grunt team has been disbanded. This operation aims to prosecute them so that it will make sure that this fiasco will not happen again. Starkiller88 (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
So it's something you've created in response to his editing? --W. D. Graham 18:16, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's WHAT BatteryIncluded said on my talk page last month: Fobos-Grunt FAILED, BURNED, CRASHED (NOT RECOVERED) AND THE MISSION WILL NOT BE REPEATED IN ANY FASHION OR NAME (EVER). It is Op_PhobosGone and it's on Twitter right now. It is not a hoax. It is real. And the campaign to declare war on "those responsible for this failure" and make sure that this will not happen, as stated on the description of the page. Starkiller88 (talk) 05:33, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Starkiller88 is a single-purpose user obsessed with the failure/repeat of the Russian spacecraft Phobos-Grunt. His months-long disruptions escalated now to acussation of me being part of Anonymous hackers waging war against he. He is obviously a paranoid person with whom it is not worth trying to explain the 5 Pilars of Wikipedia. Now, if I may, I will return to my private space station, stroke my cat and relish on the destruction reaped by my minions at Anonymopus. BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
OK. I got it. I'm not a paranoid person. I started Anonymous "Operation Fobos-Gone" (@Op_PhobosGone) on Twitter and (on paper.li) because of the fact that Fobos-Grunt FAILED, BURNED, CRASHED (NOT RECOVERED) AND THE MISSION WILL NOT BE REPEATED IN ANY FASHION OR NAME (EVER), and I am a member of The Planetary Society distraught over the loss of Phobos LIFE, which may led to LIFE being abandoned and the team behind it disbanded. The project website of Fobos-Grunt is still online despite after these events, and it is likely to exist forever as it is a junk of IKI's web servers. Starkiller88 (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah. I'm changing my !vote to Speedy Delete under G3 as pure vandalism. --W. D. Graham 12:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
This is not vandalism. Check it out on @Op_PhobosGone twitter page, and the recently established Operation Fobos-Gone Daily which reports Anonymous group's upcoming vigilante actions on those responsible for the Phobos-Grunt launch fiasco as Dmitry Medvedev suggested. Anyway, leave it out until actually happens. Starkiller88 (talk) 15:32, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
I too vote for a speedy delete and even banning user Starkiller88 under WP:vandalism, WP:soapbox and persistent introduction of false material (e.g. cheap websites he creates to "support" his paranoid campaign).BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Throw WP:SOCK in there as well, because he was quite clearly behind the raft of IP edits that resulted in the page's protection. Unfortunately I can't prove his intentions, but I suspect he was using the IPs to try and keep his main account under the radar (which has already been blocked for disruption four times (albeit a few years ago, but he hasn't taken the hint); three times for OR, and once for talk page disruption similar to his responses when we tried to explain why we didn't need to include website status reports in the article). I guess this is something which would need to be continued at WP:ANI though, and for that matter all four redirects have now been speedied, so the deletion discussion should probably be closed. --W. D. Graham 19:32, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete for obvious reasons (covered by WDGraham and BatteryIncluded). --V2Blast (talk) 18:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Canis Cadem Edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This page has been created as a redirect to Bully (video game). The edit summary says that Canis Cadem Edit is the european name of the game, whereas it is actually Canis Canem Edit. A redirect page with this name exists. This is obviously a typo, and a quick search on our favourite search engine will deliver nothing but results with the right spelling. This is why I think this page should be deleted. Maimai009 15:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep - A google search for the exact phrase "Canis Cadem Edit returns "About 20,700 results" [12] including www.slicedgaming.com and the redirect page got viewed 80 times in 2012-03 [13]. Tideflat (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. It strikes me as a plausible typo. Even after reading the correct title multiple times, my mental voice keeps "pronouncing" it 'canem' - I suspect because of the mental priming of the old latin phrase cave canem (beware of dog). Rossami (talk) 22:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
    • ...Uh... "Canem" is the right word. "Cadem" is wrong. --V2Blast (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
      • I did get that turned around, didn't I. Sorry. Tideflat's statistics are still compelling, though. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep - it's apparently a decently common typo. --V2Blast (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

May 7

Physics major

This redirect exists only because of an xkcd comic and serves only to cause contention about its target. There hasn't been a need for it before, nor for similarly named "major" articles, and it's implausible that anyone would search for it as such. Bsdaemon (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Even if it wasn't needed before, the xkcd comic ( http://xkcd.com/1052/ ) will cause many people to search Wikipedia for "physics major" for years to come, and redirects are for anything (common misspellings, being featured in a popular publication) that causes users to search for the wrong phrase. It's protected now, so vandalism isn't a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It will cause them to check whether it really does redirect to Engineer. A deleted article record would be no less useful to that end than a redirection, and would be no more likely to be vandalized. In any case, since the redirect exists purely because of the xkcd comic and the sense of that comic refers to a person who majored in or is majoring in Physics rather than the coursework, Physicist would be a more appropriate target for the redirect. Bsdaemon (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Minor clarification; you cannot protect a redirect from vandalism if it does not exist. You can, however, ask that it be salted so it cannot be recreated, so if this deletion discussion results in a deletion, we should ask for that. I have no opinion as to whether it should redirect somewhere else. If nobody else objects, let's ask for it to redirect to Physicist while we discuss whether to delete it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete If people search simply because of XKCD, they're only looking to see if it really directs to Engineer, and Wikipedia does not exist simply to serve a random XKCD comic. If people want to read about Physics on Wikipedia, they can do so without this redirect. (Or if anyone thinks otherwise, should we therefore create "major" redirects for every article to do with education? And what about the rest of the world outside of the US, are we going to create Physics degree and so on too?) Mdwh (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    • While you do make an excellent point, to my way of thinking, pretty much everything that a large number of people search for should have an article, a stub (with plans for a future article), a redirect, or a link to Wictionary. I don't think it matters whether we thing the reason so many people are searching for that phrase is worthy or not. Volume of searches is justification enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
      • But when we talk of people searching, we mean "Is someone looking for information on Wikipedia going to use this term", not that it's suddenly linked by a high profile site. This argument could mean high profile sites could get all sorts of more bizarre redirects created on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure that would be a good thing. Also given that the strip only recently appeared, and many people read XKCD as it comes out, I doubt the long term hit rate would be anywhere near that shown for the one day. Mdwh (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
        • That's an argument for making the search term go somewhere non-crazy, not an argument for making the search term go to "not found." High-profile sites can already cause all sorts of bizarre terms to be entered in Wikipedia's search box. Making the term go to "not found" instead of somewhere sane does not change that basic fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment "physics major" (or any other "x major") usually refers to a "Bachelor of Physics" (or Bachelor of X), do we have an article that covers that? 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep It's true that :Physics major has never been visited before, but redirects are cheap. If the redirect exists, then curious people arrives to a well-researched article. If the redirect doesn't exist, they land on an "article doesn't exist" page, which can be discouraging. People will keep using this redirect, because forums over the internet will have linked it. I think that removing the redirect is just punitive, and we are not supposed to punish readers just because they arrive to an article via pop culture. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The spike is clearly not because people are searching for the topic in general, but because of the XKCD strip and checking out to see if it goes to Engineering. Since it doesn't, I don't see how an answer of "It doesn't" is any different for the XKCD searcher whether we link to Physics education, or don't have the redirect at all. And it seems unlikely that the level will remain that high. I don't see how anyone is "discouraged" or being "punished". I like reading XKCD myself - indeed that's how I found this discussion, as I knew that some jokers would try to mess with the redirect, just like someone does with every single strip. Should we add XKCD to a "Popular Culture" section for Wood, so as to not punish the XKCD readers? I mean, the same argument about XKCD readers coming to look at that section, only to find it doesn't exist, applies there too. Mdwh (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete: Not a valid search term and merely exists to make a pop culture reference.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Not valid? Surely you mean "not frequently searched". But now the cat is out of the bag and it will be searched by people who find it in xkcd and in all the forums and blogs that reference the comic[14]. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. A non-gibberish search should not return no result; we should point users in the right direction if we can. Besides, redirects are simple and inexpensive; as long as it's a little useful having it is a good idea. Most of the things XKCD has referenced now redirect to XKCD, but as this could conceivably be used by non XKCdians, I agree with the others that it should redirect to some physics-related article. Physicist would seem the most sensible, as physics majors are physicists. Knight of Truth (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep it's a plausible search term (thanks to xkcd, though it would still have been plausible without the comic) and the target is a suitable result for the search term. Hut 8.5 12:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Move My only real issue with this redirect is that a Physics major doesn't really belong as a redirect to Physics education as this page covers very little on graduate/major level education. A better redirect would be to Physicist or a small stub page linking to both. Redirects as discussed earlier are largely free, and there will be plenty of traffic to this page, even from people googling for Physics Major, in which wikipedia does not currently feature a top10 result VibroAxe (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - Just because xkcd thought of something useful before we did isn't a reason to get butthurt here. "Physics Major" is a perfectly plausible search term for someone looking up encyclopedic info on...wait for it...majoring in physics. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per multiple above. Briefly, it's plausible, it's not harmful, we have many similar redirects (such as English major), redirects are cheap and salting the title would be overkill. Why it was created does not matter if it is now helpful (or at least not harmful). Rossami (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Perfectly sensible search term with a logical target. It's not harming anything, so there is no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Physicist. Better choices would be making a page about physics majors, or a list of notable physics majors, but that's not feasible. Treedel (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as it's now a quite-likely search term going forward, is consistent with other uses (such as (English major), and we've yet to exceed our redirect budget for the fiscal quarter so we can afford it. - Dravecky (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: At some point during this process, a user converted this title from a redirect into a standalone article, whose only content is a single sentence defining "physics major" as an academic major in physics and a "see also" link to physics education. Accordingly, since it's not a useful page for us to have in that form, I nominated the current version for AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics major) before I knew about this discussion. There's not much use in having two parallel discussions operating at cross purposes to each other, so I'd suggest consolidating them into one discussion happening at one place — but would it be preferable to close the AFD and point people here, or to close this discussion and point people to the AFD? (Given the title's current form as a standalone article, I think it makes more sense to keep the AFD going forward instead of this one, but I don't want to impose that without bringing it up for discussion first.) Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • To other discussion I'm going to put my comments in the other discussion, as it seems more active. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics major)Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. The page has been restored to a redirect and the AfD closed in favour of and without prejudice to this RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Article or Salt. I explained my reasoning for this in detail in the AfD discussion, only to have the discussed closed, and the article deleted, with no response or rebuttal to my comments. I would appreciate hearing a rebuttal to them. Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Firstly, why is protection needed? I've not seen any suggestion that it would be required, and if it is this can be applied whether it is a redirect, article or blank page so it has no bearing on what the best of these options is.
      Secondly, what content could be at the title "Physics major" that is both encyclopaedic (rather than dictionaric) and not duplicative of content we have at another article? Your argument at the AfD would seem to be better answered by redirecting the title to Academic major (a target worth considering) rather than starting a new article.
      Finally, when a page is being discussed at an XfD then changing the form of that page (from a redirect to an article or vice versa) without getting consensus at that discussion is frequently interpreted as trying to bypass the discussion (whether that was the intention or not). The correct course of action would have been to propose here that it was converted into an article, optionally writing a draft version of the article somewhere (e.g. in your userspace). There is no point in having parallel discussions, and so one needed closing. As this RfD was the pre-existing, the page changed back to a redirect and the course of action recommended by the majority of AfD participants being a redirect, closing the AfD was the only logical option. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I've been a little slow to realize how offensive it seemed for me to make that edit while this discussion was ongoing. At the time I was completely unaware of it, as incredible as that seems. So as not to distract from the main discussion here, I explained how I made that mistake on my user talk page.Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Per a talk page request, I affirm that I carefully read the comments at the AfD discussion and here. I had (and have) no change of opinion to that stated above. Rossami (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • It would probably help to, you know, move this comment to being nested below your original comment. (And feel free to delete my comment on the matter if and when you do.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by V2Blast (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Merge After reflecting and reviewing all the comments, I think the best solution for now is one that has been mentioned a few times: redirect to a specific section of physics education, and to edit that section to make it seems like less of a non-sequitur. The precedent of English major has been mentioned a few times. The article that redirects to actually contains a section titled "English major", which makes that more helpful and less confusing for someone on the receiving end of that redirect.
    Some of what I would highlight from my re-reading of the discussion:
    • I think there's a consensus that it's a valid search term, with or without xkcd, and so we should care at least a little about making it work right. "we should point users in the right direction if we can."
    • The keep argument is generally, (paraphrasing one comment from about) that arriving at a well researched article is better than nothing. Where I disagree with that is that the higher education section of the physics education article is not something I'd describe as being well researched.
    • Salting would take care of the possible vandalism problem--that's not a valid redirect argument. There was a vandalism problem on the day-of, but it may not continue.
    • I'm not the only one who argued for a stub, with the main purpose of the stub being to provide links to the various plausible redirect targets. This is not an established Wikipedia page type--it is not an article, as it does not contain encyclopedic content, it's not a disambiguation page, as it is useful even when there is only one meaning of the term in play, it's not a dictionary definition (as that's not its purpose). So it seems this is a new concept for which there is not established policy. This is probably not the time and place to consider whether such a new page type has a place in Wikipedia, but I might start at discussion on that if I can figure out where to do so.
    • I liked this argument for why we should do something other than or beyond leaving the redirect in place, which was in the AfD discussion:
"Please note that the Physics education article does not actually tell the reader what a physics major is. Neither does the Academic major article, unless you know the topic of physics. The Engineer article is however even less useful to someone looking up "physics major"." (from O8h7w)
Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment/progress report I went ahead and edited the physics eduation section on US universities to make it an appropriate target. It seems like people have lost interest in this discussion, so I'm not sure how to figure out whether it would be presumptuous to proceed with editing the redirect to link there.Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The war is lost

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Implausible redirect, seemingly based on a quote in the BLP redirect target, "As long as we follow [President Bush's] path in Iraq, the war is lost." Rd232 talk 22:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. A variation of googlebombing. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as an implausible redirect, apparently created to target a BLP via search engine manipulation. - Dravecky (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete makes no sense. I seem to recall something from classical history using something like this phrase. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - besides the whole BLP thing, the phrase has also been used in many other contexts (much more commonly/often in other contexts than relating to Reid, at that). --V2Blast (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

2010 Venezuelan self-coup

Page created as completely unexplained redirect to a BLP. Target doesn't clarify either. Rd232 talk 22:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • WP:BLP applies only weakly to public figures such as Hugo Chávez. (Private citizens have a much higher presumption of privacy than public figures.) I don't see BLP applying to this case.
    That said, the redirect certainly deserves evaluation. Self-coup describes a historically-recognized governmental maneuver. Venezuela is not currently on the list of examples of that maneuver but a search on "self-coup" in proximity to "Venezuela" returns an interesting number of quotes and accusations from opposition candidates and from independent political scientists. There is even this quote in which Chavez explicitly said that he decided not to stage a self-coup. The general concept of a redirect to Chavez does not seem unreasonable or pejorative given the context. None of the sources I found were specific to any event in 2010, however. Abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Based on Rossami's comments, I've done some looking too and not found anything. Venezuela parliamentary election 2010 is the closest thing in Category:2010 in Venezuela but only mentions Chávez in passing, and doesn't mention anything about coups (self or otherwise). I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela to see if anyone more familiar with the country can offer any recommendations. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I Wanna Be A Model/Malaysia's Next Top Model

Whoever created this article before I, in my bumbling, got it turned into a redirect, thought these two shows are one and the same, but they're not (as they have separate articles, Malaysia's Next Top Model and I Wanna Be A Model), making this a confusing redirect.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  • disambig then, with a link to each show. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. If these are two separate shows, a combined dab page doesn't make much sense. No use for such a redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. This isn't the only redirect like this, I've added three others also created by the same user in 2007. There's been quite a lot going on with these redirects so it's a rather hard to figure out exactly what was moved where. But it looks like the page I Wanna Be A Model, was originally created in 2007 and moved around through these various titles, finally staying put at I Wanna Be A Model/Malaysia's Next Top Model where it has been for a number of years. Malaysia's Next Top Model was also, until last week, a redirect to I Wanna Be A Model when the nominator changed it into an article about a different show. I don't know the subject, and a google search really didn't illuminate me, but it seems this comes down to the question, is Malaysia's Next Top Model an ambiguous term? From my perspective it appears both shows can be referred to by that title. If this is the case, I would suggest leaving these four redirects in place, moving the current "Malaysia's Next Top Model" to Estee Lauder Model Search - Malaysia (or something else), and turning "Malaysia's Next Top Model" into a dab page. I wasn't able to find anything, but any official websites/ material for these shows would likely be a real help in determining what title these shows go by. France3470 (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment. Following France3470's comment, I've left a note a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia in the hope that someone there may be able to offer some more illumination on the topic. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE Hall of Fame

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy G7  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete. There is a principle that the internal workings of Wikipedia should not be visible to casual readers - see WP:RFD#Reasons for deleting #6 and WP:Cross-namespace redirects#Arguments for deleting CNRs first bullet point (visitors should not fall into the pipework). There is a counter-argument lower down WP:CNR, but members of the Guild of copyeditors surely know their way around Wikipedia space and do not need redirects from mainspace. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete. The target is not a page that new users unfamiliar with namespaces need to be able to find, and it's very unlikely have any other benefits brought from a mainspace link. It was created as a redirect earlier this year, apparently to fix a redlink in a userbox (which no-longer uses this redirect as far as I can tell from the incomming links) so there is no history we need to preserve. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Missing articles

Unused and unwanted cross-namespace redirect. Requested articles was deleted five years ago. How did this one survive? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:RFD#Reasons for deleting #6. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. The argument against cross-namespace redirects is weak at the best of times and especially weak when we're talking about core concepts that are specifically targetted to helping new editors. I see no potential for an actual encyclopedia article at this title nor any realistic chance that a reader is looking for anything other than the current target. Rossami (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per Rossami. If there was a "missing articles" encyclopaedia article, or a redirect from there to an article, we would have no hesitation in adding a self-referential hatnote for the benefits of users. As there isn't, and we don't do {{Wiktionary redirect}}-style soft redirects to project space, then we are left with either a redirect or nothing. The question therefore is whether the benefit to the encyclopaedia by allowing as many people as possible to find the target is greater than the disbenefits from the potential confusion with an article. In this case the analysis comes down firmly on the side of having the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. To my way of thinking, whenever someone proposes a deletion on the basis of being cross namespace, it is worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects and seeing which of the "for" and "against" arguments apply, how they should be weighted, and whether they are valid. Applying that test, I concluded that this is worth keeping. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above. I doubt anyone's searching for "Missing articles" for any other reason, and I see no real harm to keeping the link. --V2Blast (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Minecraft, Pacific Fleet

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. I have added a hatnote about Minecraft to the target article. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant redirect Devin (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep this is a legitimate redirect which is mentioned in the target article. "Minecraft" in this sense refers to naval craft which have something to do with detecting or laying mines, it doesn't have anything to do with the game. Hut 8.5 12:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article that's redirected to describes "Commander, Minecraft, Pacific Fleet" as a former part of the US Navy command structure, and as such it's a relevant redirect. An incredibly obscure one, perhaps, but people do use it.[15] Knight of Truth (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep, with suggestion for a possible Alternative: How about a disambiguation page instead? Something like "Minecraft, Pacific Fleet refers to U.S. Navy type commands, a part of the US Navy command structure. Not to be confused with Minecraft, the game." Otherwise, keep - it's a legit if rarely used redirect. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I have my doubts as to whether one actually reaches this redirect while looking for the game, so I'm not sure if your alternative proposal has much added value. In any case, it would be more appropriate to make a hat note rather than a disambiguation page. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Steve Nichol

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Deletion under criterion 10 as target merely mentions Nichols in band member list; he has been in other bands such as Eddie and the Hotrods & One the Juggler, and he doesn't have enough notability or info available for his own article. 94.116.10.167 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep Are we reading the same article? When I read the Loose Ends article, almost half of it was about Nichol. Unless he becomes more famous, this is where the redirect should go. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep per Dondegroovily. If/when he becomes independently notable, an article can be overwritten on top of the redirect. Until then, this redirect at least points readers to an article that mentions him. (No objection to changing the redirect to one of the other bands if you think they are more significant or if they do a better job documenting his job history.) Rossami (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above - though I don't personally know if he's played a more prominent role in any of the other bands. If he has, he might be notable enough to deserve his own article... --V2Blast (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

May 5

Teek

This redirect should be deleted, as "Teek" does not appear on the referenced list of characters. 108.38.173.100 (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete and redirect to Teak (delete the edit history, retarget to the tree) as a {{R from mispelling}} -- 70.49.124.225 (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete then redirect to Teak per 70.49.124.225. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • There are two possibilities. The first as previously mentioned, is to Delete and redirect to Teek, and the second would be to retarget to Ewoks: The Battle for Endor a made for TV series where that character appeared and is mentioned in the plot section.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • While that might be a possible target, I'd say it's less likely to be the primary thing searchers are looking for than the misspelling. A hatnote at Teak ("Teek" redirects here, for the Star Wars character see Ewoks: The Battle for Endor) would suffice I think. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
      • Fine with me. I wasn't partial to the Battle for Endor redirect myself but thought it was a least worth the consideration. The hatnote idea should be enough.--174.93.169.157 (talk) 19:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete then redirect as per above; I doubt too many people are really looking for the Star Wars character, but a hatnote should be fine. --V2Blast (talk) 19:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Grenal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was pages moved, discussion now moot. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

To move Gre-Nal RmSilva can talk! 00:20, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Question Right now, Gre-Nal and Grenal are both redirects to Gre–Nal. Do you want to move Gre–Nal to one of the other titles? If so, please place {{db-move|your reason for moving the page}} on the title where you want the page to be (type it on Grenal if you want us to move Gre–Nal there) and replace "your reason for moving the page" with the reason why you believe the page should be moved. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
The nominator's userpage says that he is a native Portuguese speaker but is en-0. I've used Google Translate to produce the following message. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Pregunta Agora, Gre-Nal e Grenal são os dois redirecionamentos para Gre-Nal. Você deseja mover Gre-Nal para um dos outros títulos? Se assim for, por favor lugar {{db-move|sua razão para mover a página}} no título onde deseja que a página a ser (digite-o no Grenal, se você quer que a gente se mover Gre-Nal lá) e substituir "sua razão para mover a página" com a razão por que acha que a página deve ser movido. Nyttend (talk) 22:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Per an explanation from RmSilva, I've moved Gre–Nal to Grenal. Someone please close this. Nyttend (talk) 00:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment you can just request a technical rename request at WP:RM to move an article atop a redirect. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

May 4

Socially liberal

Delete The page it re-directs to is not a synonym. At present the re-direct page links out to Pride parade, Yuppie, Pseudo-anglicism, East coast liberal, Democratic Convergence of Catalonia, Maryland Democratic Party and Jaunlatvija. The use of links in these articles appears to be over-linking. TFD (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment There's a relevant discussion ongoing (?) at Talk:Social liberalism#Contemporary, popular use of term 'socially liberal'. For what it's worth, I don't fully understand the rationale here. If "socially liberal" doesn't mean the same as "adhering to social liberalism", then what does it mean? And I don't see how any of the uses in the linked articles constitute overlink. – hysteria18 (talk) 22:41, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I have to agree with Hysteria18 here. Grammatically, it's the adverbial form of the same adjective-noun combination. If you don't think "socially liberal" means "one who believes in social liberalism", what do you think it means? Are you arguing that it should redirect to something like Cultural liberalism instead? Regardless, there is no basis to delete the redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Many (most) redirects are not "synonyms" - they are there to benefit readers who might well use the term, and where the best fit is another article which exists. And a redirect has nothing to do with whether the page it links to has other links - I suggest that most pages would fall into that category <g>. Collect (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep Adherents of social liberalism are socially liberal, and socially liberal people are adherents of social liberalism. It's vaguely like making Dancer and Dancing redirect to Dance — they're not synonyms, but they're forms of the same word and refer to precisely the same topic. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I started the relevant discussion that hysteria18 refers to above, so I thought I would comment here. I understand that when a person is described as "socially liberal" (as the Economist does in the article Right man, wrong job) it commonly means they believe that legislation primarily aimed to impact on the private / personal lives of individuals should be minimised. Other commentators who share a similar understanding of the term can be found within the Adam Smith Institute, the Huffington Post, again in The Economist (this time with an actual definition) and elsewhere on the web. Currently however socially liberal simply redirects to social liberalism and this latter article makes no mention of what I believe is the common usage of socially liberal, instead its sole premise being that "social liberalism is the belief that liberalism should include social justice". I therefore edited the article to include what I believe is the contemporary use of socially liberal. This edit was however removed with the reason given as being "off-topic." Although I would have been happy for my edit to have been refined and improved (and in retrospect I think it could be improved), I objected to its complete removal. The conclusion of this discussion was the socially liberal article should be put up for deletion. Although that is one option there are others: a.) If socially liberal continues to link to social liberalism some explanation of its contemporary use should be included (accepting my original edit could be improved), b.) The socially liberal article becomes an article in its own right as opposed to simply a redirect or c.) socially liberal is redirected elsewhere (possibly cultural liberalism). I have no strong opinion on which of these options is chosen, but I do believe that the wikipedia article for socially liberal is currently misleading in that it makes no reference to what is a contemporary, popular use of the term - someone with no prior knowledge would assume that someone who is socially liberal simply believes that liberalism should include social justice, and although that is possibly some people's understanding it is certainly not everyone's. If the choice is between the status quo or deletion then I vote for the latter. NB I will not be able to contribute further to this debate from today as I'll be offline for a period (to the delight of many I'm sure...). DistractionActivity (talk) 10:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • On reflection, dabify seems to me like the best option. – hysteria18 (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment The article "Social liberalism" is about liberalism that supports the welfare state, while "socially liberal" refers to people who are tolerant of different cultures and lifestyles. One may support old age security, yet be opposed to same sex marriage, or one may believe in the equality of races yet not support government funded health care. They are different topics. TFD (talk) 12:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there are reliable sources which establish that the phrase "socially liberal" refers more reliably to the concept of Cultural liberalism and not to Social liberalism, then simply cite the competing sources on the Talk page and retarget the redirect. (I am skeptical that this is universally true though it is perhaps a reasonable interpretation in the context of US politics and culture wars.) Regardless of target, though, there is no reason at all to delete the existing redirect. Rossami (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

dead end

Retarget to cul-de-sac. The primary meaning of a "dead end" is a road that has no outlet. Our article on that topic is cul-de-sac, but it could just as easily be at dead end. Dead End is a disambiguation page focusing on creative works with the title "Dead End". Powers T 15:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose. There is no clear and convincing evidence that readers entering "dead end" in the search box are looking for cul-de-sac. Due to the inherent ambiguity of the term itself, redirecting to the disambiguation page is a better option. Also see discussion at Talk:Dead End#Requested move which touches on this redirect. older ≠ wiser 22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, all the current inbound links to dead end refer either to the road or to the generic concept of a strategy that is blocked so we do have a little idea of how readers are using the term. That said, Dead End (the disambiguation page) includes cul-de-sac as the very first entry on the page. That seems pretty reasonable to me for an ambiguous term.
    Really, though, this is the wrong forum. This debate should be carried out at Talk:Dead End where editors can also benefit from the opinions offered in the recent Move debate. RfD is unnecessary. Rossami (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Pardon, but this is exactly what RFD is for, isn't it? I did leave a notice at Talk:Dead End. Powers T 00:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
    • @Rossami, yes we have a some idea. Cul-de-sac is certainly one of the most likely targets, but I suspect the metaphoric sense is nearly as likely, which is why redirecting to the disambiguation page is reasonable. older ≠ wiser 02:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
      • But the disambiguation page doesn't include the metaphorical sense (nor should it). Powers T 01:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
        • It includes a link to wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 12:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Question why shouldn't the disambiguation page include a link to cul-de-sac? Cul-de-sac is an article that could be at the title "Dead end" and it's very likely that users looking for that article will look under the term "dead end" - indeed if it were titled "Dead end (road)" there would be no argument against its inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
          • No one has suggested that the disambiguation for dead end should not contain an entry for cul-de-sac. The disagreement is whether dead end (lower case) should redirect to cul-de-sac instead of to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 19:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Note I've just created Dead end (road) and Dead end road as redirects to Cul-de-sac, Dead end street already redirects there. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget to cul-de-sac, but at the same time, keep in mind that not all road ends are cul-de-sacs - there are also hammerheads and plain old road ends without turnarounds. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
    • The article cul-de-sac gives me the impression that only in the U.S. is that a common distinction; in other countries, the term is applied regardless of whether there is a turnaround or not. Powers T 00:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as it is now - Dead End is already a disambiguation page, as there are a lot of things named or called "dead end". Makes the most sense for the lowercase version to redirect to the same disambig page. --V2Blast (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Nothing on the disambiguation page (except cul-de-sac) is called "dead end"; they are all called "Dead End". Powers T 00:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Charity International

Charity International sold its naming rights to another organization when it changed its name to Global Happiness Organization--including its urls. Therefore having "Charity International" redirect to Global Happiness Organization will create undue confusion for people looking for information about Global Happiness Organization as there is an additional organization functioning under that name now with the exact same urls. That organization is not notable enough for a Wikipedia page of its own though, so replacing the redirect with a new article isn't an option.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Am proposing the redirect page for deletion.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep for several reasons:
    • The target is about the organisation formerly called "Charity International" and so this is a very likely search term.
    • The article was at the title from 2009 until about 30 minutes before this nomination so the redirect is an important part of the attribution history that we need to maintain per our license
    • There will be external links to the old title for probably many years to come (indeed it's usually a few months before all the actively maintained mirrors catch up, and much longer for lesser- and unmaintained mirrors).
    • If there is a potential confusion with another organisation using either name then this should be noted in the article, where people following the redirect will find it and be educated. If the potential confusion isn't significant enough for mention there then it's absolutely not significant enough to warrant deleting redirects.
    • Maintaining the redirect discourages the creation of an article about a non-notable organisation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey County College

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G7 by user:Malik Shabazz. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"The redirect might cause confusion" (reason 2 above): the name looks as if it would be the name of a specific college. The redirect appears to have been created for use by the Gloucester County College article, and is not used by any other. In copy editing the article I am linking to the list by piping expressions like "County College in New Jersey", as less confusing. --Stfg (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

  • I should probably have said specifically that I'm proposing it for deletion. --Stfg (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • No objection to deleting it (I'm the original creator); I hadn't thought of the confusion issue when I created it. Allens (talk | contribs) 12:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

May 3

Мinistry of Health and Social Development (Russia)

This redirect begins with a Cyrillic letter. No one will type it. It is only a month old. Delete it. Gorobay (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Move to "Ministry of Health and Social Development (Russia)" (i.e. with a Latin letter "M") and keep the resulting redirect for now. For some reason this has got a lot of internal links and consequently has a large amount of traffic. With a Latin "M" the title is obviously a very likely search term, so I suggest we move it to that title and clean up the internal links. After a couple of months the title with the Cyrillic "М" can be re-evaluated here if desired. Thryduulf (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I've bypassed the redirect in Template:Executive authorities of Russia. TimBentley (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
      • You beat me to it by just a few minutes. Anyway, now that the offending link has been expunged, there is no reason to keep the redirect. Gorobay (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
        • Actually there is - we have no way of knowing how many external links are using this term (it's way too soon for even all the mirrors to have caught up), so I stand by my earlier recommendation. After a few months we can look at the traffic stats again and see whether it is still being used or not. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Art pop

Not mentioned in the target. Pop and rock are generally considered distinct, so art pop would presumably be distinct from art rock. (Progressive pop is a plausible target, but is currently prodded.) – hysteria18 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep but almost certainly retargetted. A search for "art pop" in proximity to music returned enough hits to convince me that this is a legitimate sub-genre of music - a blending of art music and popular music. While the name probably derives from "art rock" (which blended art and rock music), the kinds of music tagged to this genre seem to be closer to the music we have described at ambient music. (Ambient pop redirects there, by the way.) On the other hand, Operatic pop might also be considered an example of "art pop" and that's anything but ambient. Perhaps the best current target is Art music#Relationship with popular music. That's a pretty thin section right now but it has potential. Rossami (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2

Lotus 59

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see the redirect deleted. The target of the redirect doesn't discuss the subject in any depth and the existence of the redirect masks the fact that no specific article exists. I think it would be more helpful for Lotus 59 to appear as a redlink. DH85868993 (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Oppose deletion. The model/term "Lotus 59" is totally valid, and most casual readers would prefer to be nudged in the right direction rather than the getting the impression that they'd searched for something invalid. Also, (per WP:REDIRECT#HARMFUL) deletion may be harmful if an outside web site somewhere parked a link such as this:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotus_59[16]
    Something to be lost, almost nothing to be gained... --→gab 24dot grab← 15:37, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn. Fair point. Nomination withdrawn. DH85868993 (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Gulf and western (music genre)

Redirect to nonexistant section. Addition of (music genre) makes it unlikely to be typed in. Only inbounds are from Buffett-related articles. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Peche Island Light

I created this redirect as a result of a page move, but I think it should be deleted. The problem, essentially, is that the sources are rather sloppy about the naming of these aids to navigation. There is a "Peche Island Light", which appears in the current USCG light list and on charts dating back to the 1930s; it is not the same location as the "Peche Island Rear Range Light", which dates back to 1908. The first is in the Detroit River due west of Peche Island; the second is in Lake St. Clair, NW of the island. The old charts are very clear on this. A number of the sources seem to think that the latter was sometimes called the former, but I think this is a mistake; the charts always refer to it as the rear range light. I do not think we could ever write an article on the real Peche Island Light because there's just not that much documentation of these modern unmanned lights, so for the sake of avoiding the confusion I went through already on this, I'd rather just delete the redirect entirely. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to keep it the way it is. If sources are confused as to the naming, people might search for it by the wrong name and this would lead them to the right place. The present "Not to be confused with . . ." hatnote seems to clarify any confusion anyone might have. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep. I'm sorry but it seems like you have completely misunderstood the sources. E.g. Rowlett's lighthouse directory places the Peche (Peach) Island Range Rear light "off Peche Island in the entrance to the Detroit River from Lake St. Clair", not inside Lake St. Clair (which is actually north-east of Peche). The old tower is now located in Marine City at St. Clair River, which is also not Lake St. Clair. And there's also an official NOAA chart that places Peche Island Light west off Peche Island but still inside American waters. De728631 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
If you will go back and look at historical charts, as I did, you will see that the light now named "Peche Island Light" wasn't built until the very late 1920s (e.g. Chart LS41 1921 edition). There was no light at that location in 1908, just a spar buoy. Rowlett and the USCG site have the right name, but the wrong location; the LHF page is titled incorrectly, but also has the correct name and location. I don't know why there is a confusion of names among the narrative sources, but the charts are quite clear. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
The 1921 chart you are referring to does show a lighthouse at today's position west off Peche Island. That is not a bouy since the same symbol is also being used for range lights and other fixed light sources all around that map. And from my point of view the LHF page is not a reliable source per WP:RS. Peche Island is not even located inside Lake St. Clair, so much for their expertise. De728631 (talk) 14:46, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, you aren't reading the chart carefully. That light is on the other side of today's channel; if you will look at things at a larger scale, it's near where Belle Isle ends now. Go back to the 1909 chart, and there are a pair of spar buoys. Mangoe (talk) 20:55, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect as is but add/improve target's hatnotes.--→gab 24dot grab← 16:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment If we hadn't had the "keep" votes, this could have been a G7 speedy deletion candidate. Mangoe created the "Peche Island Light" title and was the only person to edit that page, so author-requested speedy deletion would have been appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 21:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
  • See the USCG: "Also known as Peche Island Lighthouse, Peche Island Rear Range, Peach Island Lighthouse." [18] De728631 (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
  • That's precisely the origin of the problem. I cannot find any original documents that actually refer to the rear range light simply as the "Peach/Peche Island lighthouse", but I don't have access to the same documents that the USCG researchers did. I've found, though, that they do make a fair volume of mistakes. I was a little reluctant to propose a speedy simply on my misgivings about the quality of their research. Mangoe (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Adverse impact on the environment

I'd like to see the redirect deleted. I don't see any connection between the redirect and the target. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Retarget to Environmental degradation, I'm also okay with deletion as vague synonym for present target.--Lenticel (talk) 06:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete as not synonymous with target. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 10:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget per Lenticel. The current redirect is not completely implausible but "environmental degradation" is better. Rossami (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Redirects are cheap, but they aren't free. IMHO, this does not seem to be a plausible search string, and absolutely nothing links with the implausible name; see Special:WhatLinksHere/Adverse impact on the environment[19].--→gab 24dot grab← 15:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
    • Comment re: "but they aren't free" - What specific costs do you see associated with this (or any) non-harmful redirect? Remember that WhatLinksHere can only show us the current internal links to a title. It will not show any recently-overwritten links (any one of which could be restored if/when a page is reverted, say to cleanup vandalism) nor will it ever show any external links to a page. We assume that very recently created pages probably have no or few inbound links but the older a page is, the less reliable that assumption becomes. This title was created in Oct 2009. We have no way to know whether or how many external links were created in that time. Rossami (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Retarget as per the two above; though I doubt there will be very many, I believe there will be a non-zero amount of people linking to this article at some point in the future. --V2Blast (talk) 19:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Holyforce

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete as vandalism. No prejudice to any future legitimate use. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see the redirect deleted. I don't see any logic to the redirect or the redirects in its history. There is a band named Holy Force, but there never has been a Wikipedia article under that name. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete not a synonym for the target. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy-delete as long-overlooked vandalism. The pagehistory shows that this title has been a redirect to "idiot", "God", "pedophile", "Mythomania" and "Pseudologia fantastica" before the latest retargetting. None of those can be substantiated and the contribution histories of the anonymous editors making those edits are highly suspect. There is a "Holy Force" band (note the space). A redirect to that title would be plausible if they meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards but any such redirect should be unencumbered by the prior vandalism. Rossami (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Rossami's findings.--Lenticel (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

April 22

Refinery Town

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete, but a dab page may be created instead. Ruslik_Zero 18:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Makes no sense to single out this one city as a "refinery town". What about all the other cities around the world with refineries? Canuck89 (converse with me) 21:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not, the redirect is for the nickname and proper noun "Refinery Town" not for the sum of parts adjective+noun "refinery + town", and it is cited. There are many nicknames that refer to more than one item but if there happened to be any other cities called "Refinery Town" and it is a noun then a disambiguation is in order.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete or disambiguate nicknames are capitalized, generic terms are not, and many refinery districts are nicknamed refinery towns. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, per LuciferWildCat. bobrayner (talk) 06:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment  The argument for deletion seems to be based on an uncited personal opinion that we should not allow disambiguation pages.  And since this page might need to be turned into a disambiguation page, therefore this redirect should be deleted.  The creator of the redirect asserts that the name is cited, but provides no citation.  The next editor is not clear about the intended meaning regarding the mention of capitalization.  IMO, the !vote of the last editor is more inflammatory than substantive.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I would be fine with the creation of a Refinery town disambiguation page. All we need to do is make a collection of the world's refinery towns. Canuck89 (talk to me) 09:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
But, is that link a reliable source? Canuck89 (have words with me) 09:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
I think the link is credible for the purpose as represented.  My problem is, "Why is it so hard to find additional references?"  Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Because I think that article being linked to was actually written in more of an opinion style, thus the author of that article himself feels like the town is a "refinery town". Thus, additional references can't be found simply because they don't exist. See my Google search argument about Brega below. Canuck89 (click here!) 03:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Off-topic discussion about user-signature
Is there some way to stop the blinking of the "click here!", Canuck?  I tried typing the "Esc" key, but I couldn't get it to stop.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I have my signature tied to User:Canuckian89/Signature, which randomly assigns the colour and various other properties of my signature based on things like timestamp of signature and my number of edits. The blinking is caused by the command "text-decoration:blink" that you see above when you are editing this page. Canuck89 (talk to me) 18:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Please consider Wikipedia:SIG#Appearance_and_color and "text-decoration:none".  Thanks, Unscintillating (talk) 21:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Will be collapsing as this is irrelevant to RfD dicussion. See my talk page if you wish to talk some more. Canuck89 (talk to me) 03:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment However, a Google search for "Refinery Town" reveals that the term is not only used specifically for the city it currently redirects to (in fact, I seem see more results for Brega than anywhere else). Canuck89 (talk to me) 09:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
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.

Municipal Pier

This redirect should not exist, or should be a disambiguation page, as there are many different piers which are known as "municipal pier" or are named "Municipal Pier". For example, a Google search comes up with municipal piers at the following locations (in that order, only from first page of results):

  • San Francisco, US
  • Chicago, US
  • Ocianside, US
  • Fairhope, US
  • Santa Monica, US

If the vote goes for a disambiguation page, it may be worth mentioning why it is common for piers to carry this name. Kat (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • You make a compelling argument to disambiguate. Be bold. Rossami (talk) 21:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Make it a disam page. Navy Pier is likely not the primary topic for that name pbp 02:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Disambiguate, for the same reasons as above. There are many by that name, but no defining one. --V2Blast (talk) 19:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TENNISNAMES

Proposal seems to have been thoroughly rejected by the community (and moved back into userspace). Failed proposal shouldn't have a cross-namespace redirect like actual guidelines and policies; it could easily mislead casual readers into thinking that it's a valid rule. bobrayner (talk) 18:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Agree. Probably should have been vetted in user space as opposed to a subheading of Tennis to begin with. The only problem is people still seem to be commenting and referring to it in other ongoing discussions and they will suddenly have no link to refer to. Not all the editors will know of the original user page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Converting to a soft-redirect with an explanation that it was rejected by the community will help keep the context of past discussions akin WP:NOTNEWS. Obviously the wording of the soft redirect will need to be discussed. Agathoclea (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Delete as misleading. Agathoclea (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you explain in what way this redirect is misleading? It does lead to an essay about tennis names, doesn't it? You can agree or disagree with the essay itself, but this is a discussion about deleting the shortcut to it. How is the shortcut "misleading" ?MakeSense64 (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • It isn't a failed proposal since it has never been proposed to become a guideline. It is an essay, and per WP:ESSAYS : Essays are the opinion or advice of an editor or group of editors (such as a WikiProject) for which widespread consensus has not been established. They do not speak for the entire community and may be created and written without approval. And per WP:SASC: essays can have one or more shortcut links, in fact it is part of the standard essay template that is put at the beginning of the page. So what exactly is the rationale for deleting the shortcut to an essay that still exists? MakeSense64 (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • To stop essays from using shortcut links will require a more central discussion, because potentially 100s of essays will be affected. Here is a long list of essays using WP redirects: User:Largoplazo/WP Redirects. - MakeSense64 (talk) 11:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - absolutely misleading. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Can you explain how this shortcut is misleading? Otherwise this is just another "I don't like it" vote. MakeSense64 (talk) 05:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I have no strong opinion on this particular redirect but the statements above that redirects to failed policies or unpopular essays are not or should not be allowed is absolutely false. Many such redirects exist, many of them to the project's benefit. Rossami (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete, it is overspecialized. Would we create "ballet names", "bobsleigh names", etc? The same guidelines should be broadly applicable across many domains. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    PS, re: the core claim that tennis players' names must be anglicized, see comments here. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    Comment. This discussion is about whether the redirect to the essay/proposal should be kept, not about whether the target should be kept or deleted, nor about the merits or otherwise of its content. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
    Yes, you're right. I shortened and struck out that part. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Glucojasinogen

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Cross-namespace redirects from the main namespace to the Wikipedia namespace are allowed to exit only if they are: (i) shortcuts and (ii) have existed for a very long time and become a part of the history of Wikipedia. No clear arguments has been advanced why we should make an exception for this particular redirect and not to many other similar redirects. The argument that this case is "very special" (from the creator of the redirect) is unpersuasive as any case is special from the point of view of the creator. Another argument that Wikipedia is somehow responsible for the hoax and should remedy the situation is without merit because there a lot of such cases when a hoax or vandalism is not timely deleted. The result will be that we will end up with thousands of meaningless redirects. Finally there is WP:DENY as was pointed out in the last !vote in this discussion. Ruslik_Zero 19:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This fictional substance was the subject of a hoax, as explained on Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia. It is currently a cross-namespace redirect to that project page. That redirect was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#R2, which prohibits cross-namespace redirects from mainspace. In the ensuing discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 April 14, no clear consensus emerged about what to do with the redirect. Options proposed include retaining it because it helps inform readers about the hoax, deleting it or covering the hoax in mainspace. To resolve this, as the DRV closer, I am nominating the redirect for discussion here, although I refrain from expressing an opinion of my own.  Sandstein  07:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a fictional condition, not a substance. Not sure if that matters but I thought I'd mention it.Equazcion (talk) 08:16, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. Either the hoax is notable or it is not. If it is notable it belongs in mainspace. That project page should not be allowed to exist as alternate article space, which it does if mainspace sends readers to it for information. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to give the least possible oxygen to this type of thing. If you mean to apply WP:GNG to each list item, then I would support not oppose the creation of the list article. But that would mean deleting glucojasinogen. I'd still like the poor reader reading those scientific papers, or anyone encountering the term on the web, to go straight to a page explaining the situation. I feel we have a responsibility to shoulder here. Possibly a redirect to a page in Wikispace saying something like

On 7 October 2007 an editor inserted the word "glucojasinogen" into the Wikipedia article Diabetic neuropathy. The word has no meaning in science, or anywhere else. The edit was corrected on 29 February 2012‎.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Could we put that at the bottom of Diabetic neuropathy? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:42, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
That would inform readers at our article, Diabetic neuropathy, but not the readers of these 5,000 Google hits. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
If it is in the article, I would be very happy to redirect to it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd want those redirected from "Glucojasinogen" to Diabetic neuropathy to see the glucojasinogen explanation clearly and easily in their first screen. Even then, it's a less elegant and efficient explanation than simply taking them to a dedicated page, and it would give more prominance to the hoax than it deserves - 700 readers/day of Diabetic neuropathy vs. two per day at Glucojasinogen. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:03, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. As creator of the redirect and the one to bring its deletion to DRV, here is a reiteration of my initial discussion about the background for this page given at the Deletion Review:
  • Keep As I said at DRV, it's just a redirect, and one that helps convey arguably verifiable information, despite it not agreeing with the letter of "the law" (and we're not supposed to have those here anyway). The opposition to this is purely technical, and on Wikipedia that's never a good reason; although we tend to forget that. Equazcion (talk) 14:17, 22 Apr 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep the redirect. Given that wikipedia is at fault for editors missing the subtle but serious vandalism and the subsequent hoax that occurred I believe that we have a duty to explain this hoax. I believe that the redirect is harmless and will help to debunk this hoax term.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Change the redirect to redirect to a mainspace article discussing reliability in Wikipedia and the careless adoption of Wikipedia text in other publications, which can surely discuss this remarkable incident. Dcoetzee 23:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I'd be in favor of this as a long-term solution, but I just don't see it happening as a result of this particular process. In the shorter term, assuming consensus can't be established for this, would you settle for keeping the redirect as-is (assuming the only other option is to delete)? I'd like to know the same from everyone who !votes this way. Equazcion (talk) 05:14, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
    • We can't present this discussion yet in the article mainspace for lack of reliable sources. That would be original research and synthesis. Given the spectacular nature of the matter I'm sure there will be such media coverage in the future though (the incident is a pre-eminent anecdote to be brought up by Jimmy Wales, who is aware of the affair, and others when being asked about the reliability of Wikipedia or its use in scientific research). __meco (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete. This hoax is not notable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
    • Good thing this isn't WP:AFD then. Equazcion (talk) 12:16, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
      • It's much worse than not notable. It seems to be not worth a single mention anywhere in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm not sure where you're getting that from. The not-notable argument was probably better, even though it too doesn't apply. I get that udontlikeit, but aside from personal opinion, there's no criteria we can point to to actually make that call. Equazcion (talk) 23:41, 25 Apr 2012 (UTC)
          • Where am I getting that from? A Wikipedia article space search of "Glucojasinogen" returns only the redirect that is being discussed here. The most likely page to make a mention would be Diabetic_neuropathy, but editors decided that no mention was warranted. There is sort of a discussion at Talk:Diabetic_neuropathy#Funny_situation. My objection is that Wikipedia should only cover things that others have already covered. Anything else is original research. We need to maintain a firm stance on original research. This corss-namespace redirect to factual content is a loophole around WP:NOR. The project page is not subject to WP:NOR. Any number of hoaxes (stories of wikipedia hoaxes) can be introduced to that page based on internal referencing, with maybe some primary source only referencing, as is the case with Glucojasinogen.

            It's not that IDon'tLikeIt. I understand that some people feel we have a responsibility to right a past mistake. I understand that the "no cross-namespace redirects" thing is a mantra that in reality has caveats, holes and exceptions. However, this decision sets another example of a Wikipedia:Namespace#Pseudo-namespaces, and if that's what we're doing, at least be aware of what we are doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. "Not notable"? Huh? This isn't an article.
(1) the redirect does no harm (2) it informs the one or two readers a day who encounter the term that it is a fraud and (3) we did the poop so we should clean it up, and this seems like the most efficient way of doing that. Perhaps there's a better solution than this cross-namespace redirect (but ignoring the hoax isn't it). Until a better, responsible solution is proposed and implemented, I support keeping this redirect. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete  As a non-notable topic, we consider WP:ATD and look for a target for the redirect.  There is none.  Nor is there WP:V reliable material with which to make a target.  If the hoax were notable, there would be sources.  This seems likely to change, but is not a reason now.  The cross-space redirect is classic WP:OR.  Keeping the redirect in main space will have the effect of creating the notability of the hoax, which compounds the problem we have already created.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
As per the content guideline WP:Fringe theories, "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects."  Unscintillating (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Delete per WP:DENY. Also, the idea that Wikipedia needs to correct morons who plagiarized a hoax is pernicious. It suggests that people who violate the Terms of Use are entitled to special treatment, and weakens Wikipedia's position regarding libel lawsuits. Speciate (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

U.S. Route 91 (Arizona-Nevada-California)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a plausible search term; no incoming links except user page of editor that created the redirect. Minimal page history. LJ ↗ 06:26, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete—redirects might be cheap, but this one is worthless in a scheme that would have separate ones for each state through which US 91 passes or passed. The search term just isn't plausible on that basis, and this editor has created dozens of questionable redirects based on "completing" his book, User:Morriswa/Books/United States Highways‎ which he is now pruning back to resolve article duplication issues in it. Imzadi 1979 → 06:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete - Unlikely search term. Dough4872 15:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep: Harmless. It's pointed to the right place and isn't offensive, so no need to get rid of it pbp 02:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. –Fredddie™ 23:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep How does it hurt anything at all? Not patently offensive, not really recent, not potentially confusing for readers (e.g. the Virgin Islands template just below this one), not causing issues with the software, not irrelevant to the subject, and not doing anything else that I can see is a problem. Nyttend (talk) 21:11, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
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.

Template:Country data Virgin Islands

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete and salt. Ruslik_Zero 12:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

For those unfamiliar, this template is used in conjunction with the {{flag}} and {{flagicon}} templates to produce, for example:

With there being two countries going by the name "Virgin Islands", this redirect makes it easy for an editor to make an unknowing error. Both territories are commonly known as "Virgin Islands" depending on the perspective of the subject. The British Virgin Islands are officially known as "Virgin Islands", but the U.S. Virgin Islands are not. A redirect under this name to the British Virgin Islands would be slightly helpful for lists of IGO memberships where the member is listed under its official name, but the best outcome would be for this to be deleted so there aren't any unwitting errors. Osiris (talk) 04:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

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.


Advertisement. Check our sponsors: gold
Thanks for your time.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License