Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 12

< March 11

March 13 >

March 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 12, 2011

Nigger Innis

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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 06:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

• Nigger Innis → Niger Innis (links to redirect • history • stats) 

About ten years ago, there was an incident when MSNBC accidentally misspelt the name of Niger Innis as "Nigger Innis". [1] I guess one might argue that the redirect is a feasible search term because of this incident, which was reported in the press at the time. On the other hand, this was nearly a decade ago, and I just fixed an IP vandalism in Roy Innis, using the same misspelling, that was online for the best part of 12 hours.

On balance, I think this redirect is more trouble than it is worth. Suggest deletion and salting. JN466 12:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Comment, it seems that the incident is still referred to online, particularly it's brought up as an anecodate or example in discussions about news media gaffes, although not infrequently wrongly attributed to CNN. Whether this makes it worthy of a redirect though I don't know. I can see the value in protecting the title, either as a red or blue link. Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• The IP vandalism was on the piped side of an aliased link - deleting the redirect would have had no effect on the vandalism (or the fix). Nor does there appear to be any significant history of vandalism behind the redirect. Together, that leads me to believe that WP:SALTing the title would be overkill and probably not effective anyway. As Thryduulf points out, this error is still discussed in the media. It's not notable enough for an article but notability is not the appropriate standard for a redirect. It is mildly helpful for the few people trying to research the gaffe and not harmful. Keep and tag as {{R from misspelling}} for better clarity. Rossami (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
  • It would theoretically be helpful if the redirect address it gives actually existed. It does not, and Niger Innis contains no information on the gaffe; and rightly so, probably, because in such a short biography it would be undue. So someone entering Nigger Innis simply arrives at Niger Innis, without being any the wiser about the gaffe. That being so it seems more likely to be used to mock the subject in a way that is really quite beyond the pale ("hey, look, if you enter Nigger Innis in Wikipedia, you get to Niger Innis"). Personally I don't think it does Wikipedia any good to have Nigger Innis as a blue link, not when we are already very short of African American contributors. It's a racist taunt, and we should be above that, even allowing that redirects don't have to be NPOV. This one serves no encyclopedic purpose. --JN466 18:52, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
    • "not when we are already very short of African American contributors"
    • I'm sure this will effectively change that.
    • Ambivalent: no need to delete or keep either way. If you do decide to keep then a simple semi or even full protection would prevent vandalism.AerobicFox (talk) 07:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Also note the archived discussion. Please let's do the decent thing here. --JN466 17:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
• A reminder: The vandalism that started this discussion did not occur on the redirect page. It did not even occur on a link pointing to the redirect. The vandalism occurred on the aliased side of a piped link on a completely different article. Nothing we do to this page, whether deleting, salting or some intermediate form of protection, would have prevented that act of vandalism.
  Redirects are explicitly not endorsements of a title. Rossami (talk) 15:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

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

User:Aerosprite/Sandbox2

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 nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• User:Aerosprite/Sandbox2 → User:Aerosprite/Sandbox (links to redirect • history • stats)
• User:Aerosprite/Sandbox → User:Aerosprite/Sandbox2 (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I'm not sure of WP's policies on circular redirects, and as this is another user's subpage, I'm (personally) not going to make any suggestions; I just thought I would bring it up here. – Ajl^talk 10:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Circular redirects are blocked from functioning. (Actually, any multi-step redirects fail to function.) Other than that, there is no real policy. These look like pretty routine new-user-tests. (Note that the first edit of one of the pages was whether an external redirect works - they are blocked, too.) They were executed in the user-space, a place where we generally allow such tests. The user's page says that he/she's left the project but the contribution history shows that maybe that, also, was a test. Rossami (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

• Good enough reasoning for me. Cheers! – Ajl^talk 02:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. I see no reason to delete redirects internal to one user's userspace unless there is a real risk of confusion or harm. I see no such risk here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy keep and Close disscussion?. I was just trying to get some feedback; I wasn't really trying to get anything done with the pages. Thanks. – Ajl^talk 02:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

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