Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 15, 2009

Arthurkade[edit]

The result of the discussion was Result was Speedy delete under G8. Non-admin closure. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to non-existent page mhking (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: For future reference a redirect to a non-existent page (with no meaningful edit history) can be speedy deleted under criteria G8 ("Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page"). I have tagged this one for you. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Charles Bernard (figure skater)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy close Discussion is no longer valid, as redirect was turned into an article. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect. This is a confusing and circular redirect. It redirects the name of a notable person to an article that lists the medalists at a certain competition. Charles Bernard medaled at this competition, which means that the article is linking to itself. Furthermore, people looking for an article on this figure skater aren't looking for the medalists at an international competition, which will confuse them when they find themselves at the Golden Spin article. And if they click on Bernard's name on the Golden Spin article, looking to find the article on this person, it will confuse them even more to find themselves back at the article. Kolindigo (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I have extended the redirect into a stub. Neelix (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Holland's Next Top Model, Cycle 5[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Benelux' Next Top Model. Ruslik_Zero 08:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This show is no longer on the national show, it now absorbed to Benelux' Next Top Model. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Useless as a search term because it assumes knowledge of the target. Edit history does not appear to be significant to the target article. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Edit. It looks like the other cycles (the Dutch version of seasons?) have their own articles, so someone familiar with the show might continue the pattern and type in Cycle 5. Since the show is apparently redone as Benelux' Next Top Model, then perhaps the redirect should go there. PaulGS (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Benelux' Next Top Model. Viewers unfamiliar with the current status or just starting to watch the program may assume there will be a cycle 5 along the lines of the first four, so a redirect to Benelux would be helpful. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Benelux' Next Top Model. It will help readers to make the connection that this show is the successor to Holland's Next Top Model. HarlandQPitt (talk) 23:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Viet Nam National Coal - Mineral Industies Group[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Industies" is a misspelling, highly unlikely typo, hence useless as a redirect - per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 13#Epsiode IV - Contributions/58.8.17.219 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A Google search shows 136,000 hits for "Industies", including some that appear to be web pages of actual companies with "Industries" in the title, so it's not that uncommon. It's also perhaps likely that the page was created by a user who made the typo, so it could happen again. Perhaps unlikely, but not so much as to be completely useless. PaulGS (talk) 03:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is highly unlikely that anyone would both add a "-" and misspell a word when attempting to search for this company. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Industies" is a pretty easy typo to make, but it's the "-" that kills this for me. Highly unlikely search addition. The two together is even more unlikely - anyone typing fast enough or who doesn't care that they misspell industries is unlikely to take the time to type two extra characters just for a dash. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This redirect contains three deviaions from the actual title of the organization: "Viet Nam" instead of "Vietnam" (common), "-" instead of "and" (uncommon), and "Industies" instead of "Industries" (common). While two of the deviations are common, the combination of the three—which is ultimately what we must consider—makes this a highly unlikely search term. The redirect has no significant page history or incoming links. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Office Robbery Statistics[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 09:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion. A bit of background: In an episode of The Office, the fictional Michael Scott mentions that the Wikipedia article "Office Robbery Statistics" does not exist as part of a one line joke. Consequently, this title has been created or redirected to other articles ever since then, presumably to show that it does exist. Ho ho, how witty. I suggest it is an inappropriate redirect for a number of reasons. The article it currently redirects to (the episode the joke is briefly mentioned in) has no obvious relevance to the title of the redirect. It doesn't mention the term in the episode article never mind explain it. Therefore is entirely incomprehensible, and likely to cause confusion, to someone not already familiar with the joke. Secondly it is a joke, a pop-culture meta-reference to Wikipedia by a fictional character. We should not be creating content simply to tie in with jokes. That is naval gazing of the worst kind. Third, it sets a dangerous precedent. If we start doing this, how notable does the person that mentions a joke article have to be before we start playing along? Rockpocket 06:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep on the basis that it will curb vandalism. When the episode Crime Aid first aired, viewers flocked to Wikipedia to check if the page existed and upon realizing the page did not exist, many attempted to create a page for it, either legitimately or nonsensically. The episode referenced is scheduled to be released on DVD on September 8, 2009. If there is a legitimate and working redirect to the above episode, I believe users will be less inclined to vandalize the redirect, and furthermore would not be able to create an article with that name. Perhaps a section should be added to the episode that explains the reference rather than just linking to the article. I don't believe that someone who types that exact query could possibly be looking for anything else except to test Wikipedia to see if the article exists. Why open the playing field? Why not shut it down now by creating a legitimate redirect? As for precedent setting, there are several redirects based on cultural references popularized by the subject of the articles they redirect to. HarlandQPitt (talk) 07:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If persistent vandalism is your concern, we have a process for that: WP:SALT. Rockpocket 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is there actual evidence of vandalism to the Office Robbery Statistics page itself? From WP:SALT, "...avoid using creation protection as a pre-emptive measure, as it is intended to be a response to actual events." It seems to me like all that has been shown is that this is a popular search term and thus a popular redirect. Keeping it in place will make it just as likely to curb vandalism as salting it. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 01:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Depends on how you wish to define "vandalism". There are 5 examples of joke edits to that specific title (e.g. It squeaks when you bang it. That's what she said.) and more to other variations of the title. There were another half a dozen attempts to cite "examples" of office robberies or other such non-notable trivia for the sake of perpetuating the joke. There are also bloggers out there, if you care to search, that have written about their attempts to create a joke article and castigating the nasty admins (i.e. me) for spoiling their fun. So, yes, there is plenty of actual evidence, it is simply that it is only visible to admins. It was HarlandQPitt's suggestion that it be redirected to curb vandalism. I was simply pointing out SALTing is both the preferred option and the more effective one (unless one intends to request protection for the redirect, which would have the same caveat over preemptive action anyway). Rockpocket 02:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, okay, I see. I was thinking, as you were so good to mention, that it might be more suitable to keep and protect it for a bit (assuming there is recent vandalism - the episode is eight months old) so that it remains useful but unvandalized. That sound good? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and expand the Crime Aid article with a new #section that can further clarify the redirect and why it redirects there. Then, as people jokingly try to add, they have an article to add to. Keeper | 76 03:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See this is what I don't get. Why? Why would we want to encourage people to "jokingly try to add" anything to namespace. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. So why would we write about a throwaway one-liner in an encyclopaedic article about that episode? Do we write about any other joke he made in this, or any other episode article? No, so whats so special about this one? Just because it involves Wikipedia doesn't give it any more notability or importance on Wikipedia. The same principle was widely cited at the entirely non notable Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy discussion. At the current rate, Wikipedia is turning into one big self-referential circle jerk. Rockpocket 02:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that was meant to be a suggestion truly worth taking seriously. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Richard Doherty (military historian)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. The article was at that title for 2.5 years. None of the reasons given for deletion outweigh the potential for breaking external linking. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect with no significant links to it. Matt (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Someone might not know whether there are other Richard Dohertys or not. The page view history also looks fairly heavily used for a redirect page, so either this used to be an article or lots of people are searching for him this way. PaulGS (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was an article and pagemove took place on 9 June 2009, so the high traffic you are seeing for the month of May is to the article, not the redirect. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 04:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extremely unlikely search term. Besides, if someone decided to search for "richard doherty military historian," it turns out Richard Doherty is the top result, accomplishing exactly what needs to be done. As far as I can tell from reading the history, someone created "RD (MH)" then realized there was no need for the qualifier as he was the only one. This redirect is left over from a move. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Richard Doherty (military historian)" was moved to "Richard Doherty". Deleting this redirect could beak bookmarks and links from external sites. Is there any need to break these bookmarks and links from external sites?--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There is no need for disambiguation (even as a redirect) when there is only one search term with that name. There is no articles that use this redirect so deleting it wouldn't do any harm. Tavix |  Talk  17:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Evan Davis (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Former disambiguation page with no current purpose since there is currently only 1 notable person by this name. Page history contains some article text, however the article in question was deleted at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Davis (actor) ThaddeusB (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nobody searches for disambiguation pages. Even if they did, the first result is Evan Davis, not the dab page. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Disambiguation pages should not redirect to a page that does not need disambiguation. 17:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Harold Otto Danckwerts[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. We have red links for a reason and this seems a perfect case. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect points to a disambiguation page where Harold Otto Danckwerts is mentioned, but there is no article about him. Matt (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Better to redirect someone searching for him to the disambiguation page, where it's clear there's no article and where there's at least a short indicator of who he is, than to the search page where a user might have no idea why he's there or if the name was misspelled or something. At least this way someone might find it and create an article if there's enough information. PaulGS (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note My thoughts exactly when I created it.Cutler (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since there's no article on him, searchers for info should at least get the disambiguation page. Maybe they'd be spurred to start it! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 16:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it lets a user find the current content. It can be turned into an article, rather than a redirect, if/when someone gets the inclination. PaulJones (talk) 08:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in order to encourage article creation: editors will see the redlink and know that there is not an article there, whereas with the redirect (bluelink) they may be led to believe that an article exists. Deleting the redirect will not prevent users from finding the current content, since the disambiguation page will be among the first—if not the first—results in the search page. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 04:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon's reasoning. Also, there is no need to redirect to a disambiguation page when there is nothing there that discusses that person. Tavix |  Talk  17:52, 23 June 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_June_15&oldid=1144721989"