Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 11

June 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 11, 2010

Good article[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 speedy deleted by JzG as G4. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good article → Wikipedia:Good articles (links to redirect • history • stats)

Cross-name redirect. It was previously deleted in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 7. Magioladitis (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G4 and tagged as such. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Help:See also[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 speedy deleted by SchuminWeb as G7. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help:See also → Help:Section (links to redirect • history • stats)

This annoying redirect takes user to the "See Also" section of Help:Sections!!! What a user actually expects from this redirect is to take him or her to a page or page section about "Writing and editing 'See Also' sections in Wikipedia articles". Fleet Command (talk) 07:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made the redirect to Help:Section#See_also. However, that section title has changed since then, so the redirect just dumps the reader into the Help:Section article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant and not used as a search term; the easiest solution would be for the creator to tag it with {{db-author}}. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Imam Muhammad[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 convert to DAB page. Thanks go to Coercorash for doing the work. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imam Muhammad → Muhammad al-Shaybani (links to redirect • history • stats)

Far too generic. A large number of Muslim clergy are referred to as "Imam", and a large number of Muslims are named "Muhammad". There's nothing in the target article to suggest that this specific person is widely understood to be "Imam Muhammad", or that any large percentage of people searching for this term would be looking for this or any other specific target. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:28, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imam Muhammad is used extencively for Imam Muhammad al-Shaybani,student of founder of Hanafi Madhab;Imam Abu Hanifah.As for "shite" imam,Muhammad ibn Ali,he's called Al-Baqir al-Uloom.

Coercorash^{Talk^Contr.} 04:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to dab then. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; no objection to conversion to a ~~DMB~~ disambiguation page - this is a foreseeable search term. If this term is commonly used for other notable people then converting to a disambiguation page is the normal, and helpful, way forward. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean Disambiguation by 'dab' and 'DMB'.Ok than.Keep this Redirect to Muhammad al-Shaybani,Insha'ALLAH , we will explain on the top of that page like:

This article is about Sunni imam of Hanafis,for Scholar whom shias consider imam,see Muhammad ibn Ali.

Coercorash^{Talk^Contr.} 16:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Dave Matthews Band per Bridgeplayer. Oh wait, that's not what he meant? Then DABify, I think. The current target seems wrong, especially as we have an Imam Muhammad ibn Saud Islamic University and from my googling there are plenty of other imams named Muhammad. Sadly, Muhammad (disambiguation) is currently in poor shape; I really expected more entries and a better breakdown. Muhammad (name)#List of prominent people named Muhammad is arranged chronologically, not by area, so it doesn't provide much more help either. DABify or, failing that, retarget to Muhammad (disambiguation) with the hope that it'll be improved. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your joke wasn't funny at all.And remember we are discussing about redirection of Imam Muhammad,not of Muhammad.

Coercorash^{Talk^Contr.} 13:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created Imam Muhammad (disambiguation) page,now can someone please close this discussion? Coercorash^{Talk^Contr.} 07:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

<span id="<redacted on BLP grounds>"><redacted on BLP grounds>[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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[:]] → Star Wars Kid ([[Special:Whatlinkshere/<redacted on BLP grounds>|links to redirect]] • [{{fullurl:<redacted on BLP grounds>|action=history}} history] • stats)

Delete on BLP grounds. This person has no independent notability beyond being the SWK and long term consensus on the SWK page is to keep his name off the page. Delete Redirect for same reason - to avoid tying his RL identity to his victimisation. Interested parties may want to review the SWK talk page archives for the extenstive discussions about his real name being included and check the FAQ there also for rationales. This should really be speedily deleted on BLP grounds, but has been declined by User:Beeblebrox. Also should deletion result (as it should) we should purge this discussion afterwards. Exxolon (talk) 13:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is not the best place to resolve the dispute over this page. Up to now, having this page as redirect, but keeping the student's name out of the article appears to be the current compromise, as is mentioned at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrimoine Trois-Rivières, and it is not for us to override a talk page consensus without sound policy grounds. The redirect is a foreseeable search term - here - and does not meet the deletion criteria of WP:RFD#DELETE and has a potentially useful page history perWP:RFD#KEEP. An admin has declined to delete on BLP grounds. One way forward would be to restore the underlying article and take it to WP:AFD. There can then be a full discussion as to whether the page is kept, redirected or deleted. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Er - that's not how I see it - the AFD there doesn't override the current SWK consensus. BLP is quite clear - "Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy.", "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered", "Avoid victimization...This is of particular importance when dealing with individuals whose notability stems largely or entirely from being victims of another's actions. Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." If you check the logs [1] it's been repeatedly deleted on BLP grounds. Exxolon (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Googling "star wars kid wiki" produces the redirect plus the Star Wars Kid which is just as bad as including Raza's name in that article. And there was no consensus regarding [[<redacted on BLP grounds>]]. That deletion discussion was about another page, and I was the only user to even mention [[<redacted on BLP grounds>]]. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now I'm confused. In that AFD you said "... and restore <redacted on BLP grounds> to its status as a redirect, per the consensus reached and tested multiple times at Star Wars Kid." Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's part of my comment, yes. Now let's paste the whole thing, "Therefore, I would delete this article per WP:NOTABILITY and restore <redacted on BLP grounds> to its status as a redirect, per the consensus reached and tested multiple times at Star Wars Kid." The consensus at SWK was that we do not connect Raza's name to SWK. And as an extension of that, we shouldn't do it at [[<redacted on BLP grounds>]] either. I feel this same consensus would be best served by deleting this redirect. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:00, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually pride myself on my ability to understand the English language but I find that interpretation of your comment frankly baffling! Anyway, no matter because I am happy to say Delete since I always believe in supporting talk page consensus. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the last two sentences of Wikipedia:BLP#Avoid victimization. This individual's life has been badly damaged by the malicious dissemination of a videotape taken when he was a minor. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Doc glasgow#Outside view by Newyorkbrad; Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QZ deletion dispute#Outside view by Newyorkbrad; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - more harm than good. Steve Smith (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete realistically, there is a low (but not negligible) possibility of this adding to the victimisation/humiliation of an individual. However, I can't see any good whatsoever that might justify that chance of harm. Someone might search for "starwars kid", but who will search for this chap's name? Either they know he's starwars kid, in which case they'll search for that term (and the redirect won't help), or they won't know about there meme (and are googling the guy for some unrelated reason) - in which case we are certainly adding to the linking of the individual to his one-time humiliation, since he's otherwise unnotable.--Scott Mac 23:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing worthwhile to be achieved by keeping Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I suppose; Google autocomplete tells the story anyway from the moment you begin to type in his name (just "ghy") will do), but as far as this redirect and Wikipedia's responsibility goes, I agree with the consensus above. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, even though it won't happen. Public information is public. Denying reality is silly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.