Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 16[edit]

Hierarchical Bayes model → Empirical Bayes method[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect page points to the article on Empirical Bayes method. This is clearly inappropriate because empirical Bayes models have at most a tenuous connection with hierarchical Bayes models; in fact, despite the name, empirical Bayes models are not even Bayesian, whereas hierarchical Bayes models are fully Bayesian. The empirical Bayes page mentions in passing and points to a nonexistent article on hierarchical Bayes, and has a pointer to an external article on hierarchical naive Bayes classifiers, a very specialized topic (which is not fully Bayes in any case). Other than these two brief mentions, it says nothing about hierarchical Bayes models.

A reader who searches for or is redirected to the empirical Bayes article as a result of this redirect is only going to be confused, and is not going to learn anything about hierarchical Bayes models.

The proper solution is to start an article on hierarchical Bayes models. I presume that the way to do this is to delete the redirect from this article and to turn it into a genuine article, if even only a stub. In time it can grow into a proper article.

Hierarchical Bayes is a very important topic in modern Bayesian analysis; it does not deserve as superficial redirect to an article on a quite different subject, which will only serve to mislead the naive reader. Bill Jefferys 22:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. No need to delete the redirect for an article to be created under the same title. If you think it best, be bold and create the stub yourself. WjBscribe 22:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that a Hierarchical Bayes model is not a kind of empirical Bayes method, because hierarchical models can certainly have informative priors (the characteristic of an empirical Bayes method is that the prior is non-informative). If a stub article can be created, this would definitely be best. --Shirahadasha 19:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a replacement article is written - at which time, it can overlay the redirect. There is no reason to delete the redirect from history. In the meantime, readers are marginally better served by a poor redirect than by a redlink. Rossami (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am working on a replacement stub (won't be a complete article, but should serve as a starting point for a full article). The comments so far indicate that the best resolution is to replace the redirect with something like this. Unless I hear objections within a reasonable timeframe, I will replace the redirect with my effort. Bill Jefferys 01:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jewish Supremacism → David Duke[edit]

The result of the debate was no consensus leaning toward keep. John Reaves (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable POV pushing. Avi 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's apparently the name of a book written by David Duke. --- RockMFR 17:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does not make it notable enough for its own, obviously inflammatory, redirect. -- Avi 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How exactly is this inflammatory? It's a book he wrote, right? I know nothing about the guy or the book, but I'm guessing you are considering this to be inflammatory based on the title of the book. If the book is mentioned in the article, it is a valid redirect. --- RockMFR 20:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not just mentioned, but a whole subsection. SYSS Mouse 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - I agree, non-notable and inflammatory. --Leifern 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't seem to fall under any speedy deletion criterion. --- RockMFR 20:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - per above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As POV as it sound, reluctantly Keep. SYSS Mouse 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. RockMFR is correct, this is the title of a book he published. [1] Merging and redirecting semi-notable titles to the article about the author is accepted practice. Rossami (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, mixes a person with a philosophy. Pavel Vozenilek 01:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it's the name of a book, not the name of a philosophy. We don't have to agree with Duke to provide this navigational aid to people searching for information on the book. Note that those people searching for it may not agree with him either; they might be searching precisely because they don't agree. --Trovatore 02:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects from book names to their author's article are common. The book is mentioned in his article. WjBscribe 03:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has a subsection int he article, and might be useful to people researching bigotry to accept searches for the book. Adam Cuerden talk 21:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a bit of a touchy one - without any context there's no way to know that Jewish Supremacism is a book, and I suppose there is some room for confusion in that people may be searching for the concept and not the book. That said, someone looking for the philosophy is more likely to try searching for Jewish supremacy which does't exist - so no real reason to delete. Arkyan 16:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

0wnership → Total cost of ownership[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

improper redirect, note the ZERO in "0wnership". the word 0wn refer to a different thing. SYSS Mouse 13:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Irrelvant redirect, because its a 0 instead of an O then the usefulness of it is zero.Tellyaddict 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as probable vandalism. Rossami (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, joke. Pavel Vozenilek 01:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. If we keep this, it should point to Owned which has the same meaning. Dave6 talk 00:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Complete set → Complete space[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading; "complete set" is not a standard term for complete metric space, and the one article in mainspace that links to this redirect is clearly not using it in that way. No alternative target that I can think of. --Trovatore 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree, the redirect is a little pointless because of its zero relevance.Tellyaddict 17:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects to portalspace[edit]

The result of the debate was keep for now. John Reaves (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are unlikely search terms, not useful as shortcuts because they're not actually shorter, and cross-namespace redirects. >Radiant< 09:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all except the current event ones (but delete CEANZ) which I don't mind as people might be looking for those (but you can delete them if you want). mattbr 22:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close this nomination. This set is too large to properly evaluate. Some of these are recently created and have no history. Others are quite old and have considerable history prior to their moves into the Portal-space. Lumping all of them together in a list this long is unmanagable. Rossami (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close nomination per Rossami. There are too many here and they are too diverse to evaluate. Renominate in smaller (topically-related) groupings. -- Black Falcon 07:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, and I have just realised they haven't been tagged either. I'll see what I can do a bit later. mattbr 08:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Southern Air Temple (Main Article) → Air Nomads[edit]

The result of the debate was delete John Reaves (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highly unlikely search term, no other real use. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only recently created. Will not be searched for. WjBscribe 03:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_16&oldid=1075371632"