Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 16[edit]

Pretty Baby (Vanessa Carlton song) → Be Not Nobody[edit]

The result of the debate was keep – Gurch 17:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article on this subject already exists here, albeit under the wrong kind of title. Anthony Rupert 22:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you just want to repoint the redirect to a different target, be bold and just do it. Having said that, I'm not sure that the article you suggest is really strong enough to stand up as an independent article even if the title were changed. I'd rather they both pointed to the album's page until independent confirmation of the song's notability can be obtained. That decision, however, should be worked out on the respective article Talk pages. Rossami (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have prodded the song article, as it does not meet the criteria of notability for songs. This correctly titled redirect would be appropriate as pointing to the album. SkierRMH 02:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at WP:MUSIC#SONGS, you'll notice that that very section is under discussion and is not yet part of the Wikipedia guidelines. And I removed your prod template because I don't think your reasoning holds much weight; I mean, just because a song didn't chart means it isn't notable? There are plenty of well-written, referenced articles on here about songs that didn't chart. Anthony Rupert 16:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Masaya Nakamura → Nakamura Masaya[edit]

The result of the debate was coverted to stub about the businessman. It should probably become a disambig page once we have an article on the producer, who also appears notable. WjBscribe 11:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This term can refer to more people than just the photographer. In particular, it is used to refer to Namco's founder. 212.219.11.216 15:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the other people are sufficiently notable for an independent encyclopedia article, simply overwrite the redirect with content. The redirect does not need to be deleted from pagehistory. Note: If you do so, consider adding some disambiguation language so users can find the other articles with similar names. Rossami (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Last measure → Shock site[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I orginally boldly deleted Last measure after the close of this RFD per the closer's notes. It was later restored as a protected redirect per the outcome of an earlier AFD. I don't think that AFD is necessarily applicable at this point because it was predicated on the idea that the content from Last measure had been merged to Shock site so the redirect needed to be retained for GFDL purposes. That content no longer exists in the article and given the fact that the site is apparently not overly notability, there isn't any reason to retain a redirect at this point. As with several other redirects to Shock site that were recently deleted, this just dumps anyone looking for information on Last measure out to an article that doesn't mention the topic, and there is no reason to believe this will change any time soon.--Isotope23 talk 11:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt if there's no reference to it in Shock site then there's no reason why it should be redirected. Salt it due to its vandalism potential. --wL<speak·check> 13:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this really aught to be deleted, but I don't see the point in salting. It was re-created by a good faith user. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless it's actually true that this redirect needs to be kept for GFDL purposes. No need to salt it, though... that should only be done if it gets repeatedly recreated. Terraxos 02:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Public Enemy → Public enemy[edit]

The result of the debate was no futher action is necessary. Public Enemy with capital E redirects to the band; Public enemy with lowercase e is its own page. The nominator's concern has been resolved. Non-admin closure. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Public Enemy (which should refer to the band) redirect to Public enemy (the term)? There is no way to get to the band page (even from Public enemy (disambiguation)). I assume there is actually a Public Enemy page with info about the band. Or am I missing something (bit of a Wikipedia Editor Newbie over here)? TallGuy 08:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just a broken result of an edit war involving a user who seemingly wanted Public Enemy (band) to be at Public Enemy (which isn't a bad idea) but did so by compying-and-pasting the page contents into the redirect page (not such a good idea). I've fixed the redirect.
    I'd recommend changing your RfD to Public Enemy (band) → Public Enemy to discuss moving the page to the de-parenthesised title. I'd support this. Chris Cunningham 10:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Stin gray → Stingray[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem likely that this page is necessary at all. "Sting ray" yes, but this particular spelling I don't think is enough to merit a redirect. WDavis1911 17:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy-delete. The redirect was created during the cleanup of pagemove vandalism. Rossami (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a leftover from vandalism which I reverted. Nurg 06:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It isn't a useful redirect. David Pro 19:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Boston sucks → Yankees-Red Sox rivalry[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good faith pre-emptive redirect to avoid article creation, but titles like this shouldn't return anything. It's an inaccurate redirect anyway and the section it links to is no longer there. -Rocket00021:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The comments on the redirect's Talk page indicate that it was originally created as a WP:POINT violation in response to this AFD discussion. The fact that we kept one bad redirect back in 2006 doesn't mean that we should propogate the mistake. Rossami (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modifying my comment. I should not assume motive without hard evidence. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep. By what principle is it that articles "like this" shouldn't return anything? articles with vulgarities in the title? I note that Disco Sucks and Fuck the draft are both redirects -- as is the "companion" redirect to this one, Yankees Suck. The fact is that, in the real world about which we report, people use phrases like this. Sometimes they're used enough that we can reasonably expect some readers to search for them, even if they're not used enough to merit their own articles. Keeping these redirects is a convenience to those readers. In addition, it helps prevent the creation of dubious articles. Look at the edit history of "Yankees Suck" and you'll see that it was edited by several people and lasted a while. Thus, it's not preposterous to expect someone to come along and create such an article. Finally, the conclusion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yankees Suck (2nd Nomination) was merge and redirect, suggesting that there's community support for keeping these redirects. (Note that several editors supported an outright "keep".) JamesMLane t c 08:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of this redirect's past, and the AfD's outcome was probably the best option at the time. However, I think we don't need them anymore (maybe the Yankee one, but I didn't nominate that). It's not because of the vulgarity. Things like Disco Sucks and Fuck the draft are completely appropriate as they are well-known and established phrases with cultural significance. Boston sucks is not. Sure, people might use it, but it's just like saying "[fill in blank] sucks". By "like this" I meant inaccurate redirects that simply exist because of past disagreements between editors. Or exist to prevent article recreation. Sometimes that's ok, but it's not the best solution to solve these issues, and I was hoping we were past all this silliness. If more people want to keep this, then I was wrong, and I apologize for bring it up again.
I know "but other stuff exists" is not seen as a valid reason for keeping an article, but that's how people think. If we leave redirects like this (based on arguably good reasons) then it may well led to having Bush sucks redirect to George W. Bush#Criticism and public perception. I mean why not, I'm sure "Bush sucks" is used a lot more than "Boston sucks". Another thing, Boston what? - if I search for "Boston sucks" and I meant the city, why would you redirect me to a page about baseball. At least Yankees Suck uses a unambiguous redirect. Besides, the link's broken anyway. Rocket000 11:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no clear connection between hating Boston and hating the Red Sox. Is New York sucks a similar redirect? I didn't think so. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What other people said. Also, makes Wikipedia look unprofessional. Personman 07:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 'X sucks' redirects should only exist if the phrase is especially commonly used or notable in its own right (and in that case, it probably deserves an article of its own instead). I don't see the need for one here. Terraxos 02:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Image:Cyde.png → User:Cyde[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe

I wasn't sure where to list this one, because it is an image, but also a redirect, and redirect is the issue. The image itself it fine (except it has no license info.) Edit:Didn't think to check the talk page. Sorry. This image currently redirects to a userpage because the user uses this as a signature which violates Wikipedia:Signatures#Images. -Rocket000 22:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The license info is on the image talk page. Does it really matter that it's in a non-standard place? This isn't exactly a high-risk copyright matter. Had I known then what I know now, I never would have used an image as a signature, but the fact is, I did. I left it on a bunch of talk pages, so they do kind of need to point back to my user page. --Cyde Weys 00:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not realy in main-space so I'm not worried about this one. Lets just keep it for now. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 03:37, 17 October 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_October_16&oldid=1138575017"