Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 25[edit]

United Kingdom intelligence community → List_of_intelligence_agencies#U[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep as a plausible search item. If this is not listed at WP:Requested articles (with a notation that it's the name of a redirect), it should be as redirects may be overwritten at any time per Wikipedia policy. (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Raising this as I think my redirection will be contentious. The short list article was pasted out from the original list article in November and was no more than the same content duplicated. In practice no formal UK Intelligence Community exists. One reference is made on a Cabinet Office web page, but that seems to be the extent of the available evidence. UK policy identifies some structure in a document known as the Intelligence Machinery of the UK which is consistent with normal UK policy to refer to Machinery of Government. Redirect seems more appropriate than AfD ALR (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment My concern is largely that the term is undefined, any use in practice is casual and means different things to different people. An individual from one of the collection agencies would limit usage to those three, a strategic analyst would add the JIC and the DIS as all-source (my preferred interpretation). Individuals from other bodies may use the term despite not working routinely in the TS domain as the preceding five do.
ALR (talk) 09:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, that's the Cabinet Office website I referred to above. That is the only place claiming any authority that the term seems to appear other than a number of WP mirrors that have already scraped the article.ALR (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, even a cursory glance at news archives shows that to be patently untrue. Wnjr (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I should have been clearer. The only place with any authority (now amended). There is no formalised community; there is a loose federation of organisations that have a multiplicity of relationships with varying degrees of supporting infrastructure. Just because it appears in lots of Newspapers, doesn't mean that it really exists.
ALR (talk) 08:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Surely there is an intelligence community in the UK - various agencies with allocated responsibilities and connectivity under the same broad goal of protecting the country's interests. We may debate which name to use, but that is what redirects are for. Clearly, there should be no OR here, but I hope this discussion can address whether the intelligence 'entity' exists, and then sort out the best name. We might include 'United Kingdom Intelligence Community' and 'British Intelligence Community' when looking at the archive'. Perhaps it should be British Intelligence Services, for which there are lots of references, or 'The Agencies', which has official currency.
ALR, thanks for raising this. But your concern that the term can be variously shaded is not reason to remove it. 'Europe' also means different things to different people, but its article is still there!
Earthlyreason (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Butler report is probably the best source to look at, he uses the term regularly but in the same way talks about the policy community. His usage is fairly clearly the context I mention above; casual and referring only to the Agencies, DIS and the JIC. It helps to illustrate the difficulties with relying on a page created by a fairly low level individual in Cabinet Office.
Technical terms; Intelligence Machinery of the UK encompasses the agencies, the JIC and the DIS, Intelligence and Security Agencies only covers the three collection agencies as that's the basis in Statute, Agencies is the usual usage in practice.
I'd return to the point I made four months ago, the material probably should be covered under the JIC article, it may be appropriate to redirect the community term to that article, instead of the list. For what it's worth I'm no fan of list article either but a content fork that was going nowhere had no real purpose.
The fact that there is no definition therefore there is no verifiability or reliability to support the article is a reason for deletion. I wasn't comfortable that deletion was entirely appropriate as it has potential to be a valid search term by someone who doesn't understand the topic, however I also wanted to raise that for wider debate, hence raising it here.
I probably need to spend some time on the JIC article, but on reflection that might be the more appropriate destination, although there are significant issues around that as well; the agency heads are senior to the Chairman, despite the fact that the JIC sets direction for the agencies. All good fun.
ALR (talk) 18:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still dispute that there is no definition: there are several, such as on http://www.intelligence.gov.uk/. But no matter, you clearly know more about this topic than I do, and if you think an overview fits best in the JIC article, or in a new Intelligence Machinery of the UK, I would support you to go ahead and write it. But please accept that there is such a machinery/community (and I prefer community because officers in the various agencies (small 'a') DO relate to their counterparts as of the same ilk), and do keep this article as that overview until a better one exists (there are several links to it).
Earthlyreason (talk) 19:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also refer to intelligence community, which links to several similar articles. (I see you've been there, ALR, and naughtily pre-empted this discussion. Wnjr reverted you.
This is exactly the debate I was trying to stimulate on the article three weeks ago. When I redirected the article it was merely a content fork from a larger list article, the value of which is questionable in its own right. Three people have suggested that it has potential to grow, yet always refer to a single web page that uses it as a caption and then doesn't refer to the term. Butler uses the term a number of times in his report, but always in a way that suggests a casual context with a very limited scope.
Using the CO webpage, with no clear definition is single sourcing, it's uncorroborated. Using Butler to say anything would be OR. Similarly in a news article Morrison uses the term once, but it's undefined and making anything of that would also be OR.
From those three elements, and from personal knowledge, the term is used on a very casual basis in the same way that one might refer to a community of any kind of professional or other group; librarians for example, or another much misused term the muslim community.
The term Machinery of government is a well established usage in respect of the UK. HMG is not a single entity, it's a federation of bodies with vaguely aligned goals :) The most important goal is supporting the minister in their internal power play within their own party hierarchy, although I may be a little cynical there.
I still dispute that a community exists in a way that could be described as encyclopedic. Whilst various members of the bodies who have an interest in intelligence activities do have both formal and informal interactions, these are not supported to create an entity. the only thing that could reasonably be considered as such would be the profession which is mainly about supporting individual standards for analysis. It doesn't really matter what other countries do, the UK doesn't have a Community although people may refer to a community.
I hope this is all helping to become clearer.
ALR (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UK policy doesn't dictate WP practice, and nor (however well informed you may be) does your opinion, using the term 'intelligence machinery' for the article title would be overly UK specific. The Cabinet Office clearly consider it synonymous with 'UK intelligence machinery', and usage here, here, and here seems to concur with that. It's also clear others consider there to be such a community. Encyclopaedias cover concepts as well as formal entities, and the fact that it appears in lots of newspapers, does mean it 'exists'.
Wnjr (talk) 12:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is clearly a UK specific topic I don't see why there should be an issue with clarity and use of the correct term. Regardless of my opinion, wikipedia does have policies around Original research, Verifiability and Reliability of Sources, and those are where I have concerns about the original article that I redirected, and indeed the original list that it had been cut from. One must infer a community from the available sources and clearly Earthlyreason and I would infer different things from what's available. To me any community is very limited, yet neither of us can demonstrate our position with any degree of confidence. From an analytical perspective the available usage, from predominantly non authoritative sources, doesn't demonstrate either breadth or confidence in an assessment of membership. The more authoritative sources don't give that either, but they do imply a very small and tightly knit grouping.
Notwithstanding all of that, I'm spending some time trying to tidy up the JIC article, although I might move that to Joint Intelligence Organisation which is more correct. The redirect can go to there. There is a health warning on that, the JIO is small (five organisations) and doesn't include all the police organisations and assorted others that were linked to the UKIC article.
ALR (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see any reason why this can't be developed into a useful article, and there's no particular need to merge it back to where it apparently came from. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Andrew Lih → pownce[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. The suggested retarget is not the only article that Lih is quoted in. We don't usually disambiguate for such inclusions and it seems better to leave that to the search function. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relation beteen the two. So it is best when the page for Andrew Lih is just deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GerardM (talk • contribs) 15:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Andrew Lih is the name of user who undeleted this article. But I don't see how it follows that his name should be a redirect. Delete as pointless. Mike R (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and protect per AN/I and AfD close. Take your choice: it's either vandalism or a violation of WP:POINT. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is mentioned on this page: Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia#Notable inclusionists. Someone had his name as a URL, which was a redlink because someone deleted whatever article they created. I changed that, as you can see here. Since he was mentioned in association with Pownce I figured it would be relevant to redirect it there. On second thought, perhaps it would be better to redirect it to #Notable inclusionists instead? If he is 'notable' it makes sense to redirect his name to where he is mentioned on Wikipedia. If he is not notable, then someone should remove his mention from the DaiiW article. I hadn't heard of him so I don't know what is best. Tyciol (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the explanation. I agree that if Andrew Lih is to redirect somewhere, then it should be Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia#Notable inclusionists where he is mentioned, rather than pownce where he is not mentioned. But I still think it would be better to just delete Andrew Lih altogether. Mike R (talk) 15:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirects to September 11 attacks[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all (some have been already deleted). Ruslik (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/World political effects → September 11 attacks

September 11, 2001 attacks/FBI poster controversy → September 11 attacks

World Trade Center/Plane crash → September 11 attacks

September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/New York Times articles, October 16- → September 11 attacks

September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/Bush September 14, 2001 speech → September 11 attacks

September 11, 2001 attacks/World political effects → September 11 attacks

Septemer 11th → September 11 attacks

September 11th, 2001 terroist attacks → September 11 attacks

Casualties of the September 11, 2001 attacks: plane passengers → September 11 attacks

Planes operation → September 11 attacks

Flags on the 48 → September 11 attacks

Fot48 → September 11 attacks

Pearl harbor 2 → September 11 attacks

Pearl Harbor of the 21st century → September 11 attacks

World political effects arising from the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attacks → September 11 attacks

World political effects arising from the September 11, 2001 Attacks → September 11 attacks

Pentagon Attack → September 11 attacks


Delete 6 sub pages of earlier article and two unlikely typos and some otherwise unlikely search strings Ohconfucius (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC) added more to list: unlikely search strings, too non-specific/ambiguous or too jingoistic Ohconfucius (talk) 02:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all but Septemer 11th, which should be redirected to September 11. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all (except possibly Pentagon Attack) are highly unlikely search strings (Flags on the 48?), and there's no great loss if Pentagon Attack is gone as well. As of this posting roughly half of the nominated redirect have already been deleted. B.Wind (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. feydey (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as non-useful search terms without a history that requires keeping. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Radial- lead → Resistor[edit]

The result of the discussion was Moved to Radial-lead resistor to keep history per GFDL and original deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mal-formed name isn't useful as a redirect. I merged the content into resistor already, which is why it's not a redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete -- You could easily run a search for radial lead and it should be found. As a redirect it seems an improbable thing to write. User A1 (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose content was merged from this article elsewhere by Dicklyon. Xe was not the original author of that content. The GFDL requires keep. Uncle G (talk) 01:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - If what Uncle G says is true, then simply move the page to "Radial-lead resistor" (where it should have been to begin with), or even "Radial-lead", and then delete Radial- lead anyway. Per nom, the title "Radial- lead" is not useful as a redirect. And, as A1 points out, the title "Radial- lead" is an improbable typo, thus candidate for CSD R3. -- Fullstop (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to a useful search term and delete redirect at old name title is not useful but non-trivial history should be preserved per above discussion. The edit summary of the move should note the merge and its target since it does not appear to be mentioned in the edit history. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Various aviation accident victims → The flight they were on[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all. Ruslik (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Joe Knight, I have decided to hit up all of the non-notable victims of airline accidents. The full explanation is at Joe Knight's nomination.Tavix (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A mention of these people is enough for searching purposes; these people don't need their own redirects. LetsdrinkTea 03:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Joe Knight RfD rationale. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Various slang terms → Nigger[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all and salt (except Nig nogs). Ruslik (talk) 14:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable variation of slur, not mentioned in target article. Recommend deletion and protection against recreation. Mike R (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-- Fullstop (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fullstop's observations combined with the policy above "Note that redirects are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy." and the mantra "Redirects are cheap" would require a "keep" per policy, but WP:IDONTLIKEIT seems to be at work here and as a matter of fact, I don't like these either: they are harmful and useless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_25&oldid=1062587578"