Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 19, 2012

Labour Club[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading: the term "Labour Club" has historically referred to, and continues to refer to, workers' social clubs affiliated to the Labour Party. Student organisations are just one type of club known by this name. – hysteria18 (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Jesse Blacker[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 keep. Thryduulf (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirects to his name on a list. Player is very close to meeting WP:NHOCKEY so is better suited as a red link. DJSasso (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes I am aware as I created the original one. Both of these where while he was an amateur player. He has since turned pro and is only 36 games from meeting WP:NHOCKEY. Yes its possible still that he never becomes notable, but 36 games is a drop in the bucket and it would be pretty unlikely not to happen. -DJSasso (talk) 11:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Either he meets notability standards and thus should have an article written at this title (and you don't need RFD to do that), or he doesn't meet notability standards and should appear as a redirect to the team's season article. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Common eland[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 redirect speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G6 and article moved into its place. Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect page must be deleted as it is causing problem in the renaming and moving of the main article "Common Eland". The 'e' in the Common Eland need not be capital anyhow. The lower case is much appropriate. But you can not rename it as the redirect exists with that name. The discussion can be found in the talk page of the article. Sainsf <^> (talk) 08:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

G6'ed and moved. - TB (talk) 12:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment you could have just filed a technical move request at WP:RM speedy section. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of batsmen who have scored 100 centuries in international cricket[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 keep. Thryduulf (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one person who would be on this "list". It's not likely to grow soon. Users are not likely to search for this list. It's pointless. Delete it. JIMp talk·cont 04:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sports records like this rarely stand as long as people think they will. I remember when a four minute mile was a truly exceptional feat and now it's almost routine. Several reputable cricket-related websites suggest that other players (Ricky Ponting of Australia most commonly) are not that far behind but even if he doesn't match the record, someone will. At that point, the history behind the redirect may be useful. In the meantime, the redirect is not harmful or confusing. Keep. Rossami (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. --→gab 24dot grab← 19:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: That essay has some very good reasons why Wikipedia should not have the list content in the encyclopedia. It is, however, irrelevant to the existence of the redirect. On the contrary, turning such titles into a redirect can be a tactful way to remove such content and preempt its re-creation. The practice parallels the scenario where a stub about a non- or semi-notable person is redirected to the article about the more notable family member until such time as the person clearly establishes his/her own independent claims to notabilty. Rossami (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence of this redirect (1) shows would-be readers of this list that there's just one person who would qualify to appear on it, and (2) makes it harder for them to create it anew. If someone else comes along and scores a century, we can convert it to a mini-list, but right now it's not hurting anything and causing the minor benefits that I already mentioned. Nyttend (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Imre River[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 no consensus. Even after being open for about 1½ months I can't see a consensus in the discussion below. A relisting 10 days ago has failed to attract any new comments, so I don't think a further relisting will bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No such river (neither "Imre River" nor "Râul Imre", in Romanian). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The second link provided when that title was first created expands to a detailed topo map showing many small streams, many but not all of which are labeled. I have not yet been able to definitively confirm the existence of a waterbody named "Imre" feeding that watershed but I can't disprove it yet either. I do suspect that if it exists, it will be more a creek than a river. Contradicting that hypothesis is the fact that "Imre" is a common male first-name in that area. I notice that no one has yet notified the creator of this discussion. Abstain pending confirmation. Rossami (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the case of the Imre River, Staszek Lem is definitely wrong in his statement that there is no such river. Maybe he didn't find any reference, which is definitely different. As proof, the river is indicated in the Russian military maps scale 1:50.000 Map 050k L34-060-3. There are other maps too, but this seems to be the only one which can be accessed through the internet.
      However, the issue is more complicated, because other rivers have been deleted too. When I started writing the articles about the rivers, there was a discussion within the Wikiproject Rivers to define which rivers qualified for articles for Wikipedia. The conclusion of the wikipedians who participated in the Wikiproject was that there are no limits of size for rivers and any river regardless of size qualifies for an article. Once this rule had been accepted, i started to write articles on various rivers. After having completed over 10000 such articles, some of these articles were deleted (such as the Văleni River) without any justification. I found out the hard way that in Wikipedia it doesn't matter if we have rules or not. They are not applied and a small group of two or three people can decide that they can delete articles regardless of the rules. This happened not only for rivers but also for villages and other geographic information which was deleted, even if the subjects did comply to rules.
      I tried to make maps indicating the location of rivers though this is a very laborious exercise. But it was much more difficult to fight the people who objected to these maps - even though eventually I was able to prove that they did not violate any copyright and have them eventually accepted. But geographic information is mostly graphic and articles without appropriate maps are less useful.
      No administrator or bureaucrat - even those contacted - have taken any decision on how such matters should be dealt with. Therefore, it doesn't really matter if you delete or not the Imre River. Wikipedia was a place where people who were interested could at least find information about practically all the rivers of Romania and I intended to expand it to other countries. But if - consistently with the rules accepted by the Wikiproject Rivers - articles are deleted, it doesn't make sense to continue. We simply have to accept the reality that in the present setup, Wikipedia is not the place where people who seek this type of information can find it.
      The issue is not the Imre River - which exists and is represented on maps. The issue is Wikipedia intends to have extensive geographic information - part of which might be interesting just for a few people - or prefers to concentrate on information only on items which can be found in any other places. There are many places where you can find information about the Arieş river - you really do not need Wikipedia if you are interested in it. But there are very few where a person who is interested can find anything about the Pietroasa, Văleni or Imre Rivers.
      I am sorry I had the illusion that if a rule was accepted it would be applied. I am sorry that because I had this illusion I spent several years to compile hydrographic information which is not readily available. And I am sorry that I believed that Wikipedia was about compiling knowledge and making it available to those who might be interested in it. Afil (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Afil, you need to assume good faith. Most of us don't know nearly as much about Romanian Rivers as you do, so there was no active effort to destroy stuff. Just a bunch of people who don't know there was a river in Romania with that name. It might make sense to take some of those articles up for deletion review (deleted pages are archived, just not visible to the public) to point out to admins what the original voters missed. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, there is no discussion to delete an article on Imre River - just a redirect at Imre River that points to a different river. The issue is not whether there should be an article on Imre River, but whether someone typing it in the search box will see Arieș River (Mureș) instead of Imre. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Based on the comment above, I am prepared to assume good faith and keep the redirect. No opinion on whether it should be reverted back to a prior version holding stub content. Rossami (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorry I was incorrect to say "no such river" Of course one cannot make such claim. There are millions of streams and there may be Imre River, Gyorgy River, and Lajos River and Staszek River and Rossami river, who knows. The point is wikipedia policies of notability and verifiability. A redirect is to an article which has no information about the subject whatsoever. How on Earth you are voting to keep? It is not even among tributaries of Aries River! On the other hand, I can understand fructration of user:Afil, whose work was ruthlessly deleted. Here is the suggested solution: create an article, Watershed of Arieș River (Mureș) and list in the tree form all rivulets he collected from the maps, and retarget all these minor redirects there. Then the person who looks for Czaba River, will find a good information:
Because I doubt there is much more information available for these, other than coordinates; which would be of great help. Otherwise I still cannot find "Imre" in the ref map provided. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect a redlink is better to encourage the creation of an article. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If you want to encourage the creation of the article, then I think you'd want to revert the page to its original stub version (assuming that you trust the content of the stub). Stubs generally get expanded sooner than redlinks get created. Rossami (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is not the Imre River or Rivers of Romania. If we accept the idea that Wikipedia is covering the entire world without any discrimination, a river is not more notable just because it is located in Sweden or the United States that if it is in Romania or Bangladesh or Congo.
Therefore, the issue which is to be discussed is if there are any criteria which would define the notability of rivers, i.e. which rivers qualify for articles (or for stubs) and which do not. For rivers this should be a technical criterion: length, discharge, river basin or others. Once such a criterion is selected, we can try to assess if any particular river meets this criterion. Maybe the Tamas River qualifies for a separate article, maybe the Arieş also should not have a separate article, but be included in the Mureş river. Unless we have such a criterion, the compromise solution proposed by Mr. Lem is purely arbitary.
There is a Wikiproject Rivers which has discussed this matter. These discussions have stated that for rivers there is no notability criterion, i.e. any river however small, qualifies for a separate article. This discussion could be revised, if Mr. Lem or anybody wishes to do it. And the place to discuss this is not the article of the Imre River or Tamas River or Arieş River but within the Wikiproject Rivers, where the initial discussion took place.
However, until then, any arbitration solution is purely arbitrary. And I do not understand why Mr. Lem wants to ignore the Wikiproject River or to overrule a solution which was taken by this project, assuming he disagrees with it.
What is the scope of having specialized groups who are supposed to discuss these matters, if we are ignoring them?
There has to be some principle in what we are doing not a chaotic environment with no rules or guidelines.
Otherwise it is perfectly possible that the type of solution proposed for the Arieş River is not applied in the same way for the rivers of Peru or New Zealand. And in this case the entire Wikipedia becomes inconsistent.Afil (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Afil, once again, please stop reading other people minds and looking for enemies. Nobody tries to insist that rivers in Romania are less important than rivers in Costa Rica. I am not aware about wikiProject Rivers and don't care. I suggested the solution here because I wanted to actually help you to restore your content which was massively deleted and I am surprized that you are unhappy that someone actually wants to restore your content . If you don't like my solution, if you want millions of articles with one sentence instead, be prepared you will be seeing millions votes for deletion. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:06, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue the general discussion here:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Rivers#Handling_millions_of_creeks.2C_rivulets_and_streams. I started it, but will not take part in it, since this is not my area of knowledge. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several types of persons who are seeking information on Wikipedia. Some are those who just try to find some general information on a certain issue. This is what I call the schoolboy type of readers, who could use the information they found on Wikipedia for their school essays, a common practice.
In principle there are other readers who are looking for information which is difficult to find and they need for their professional activities. These are the professional type of readers.
In the case of rivers, I can tell you that even very basic information about the existence of a river is extremely difficult to find. Even when they exist on detailed maps, they are practically never indexed. Take for example the Imre River from which this discussion started - though it exists on maps which are on the internet, it is practically impossible to identify.
In my activity, I worked besides Romania in several countries as remote as Bangladesh, Kyrgystan or Guinea. I always encountered difficulties in identifying the information regarding rivers. This can be critical in cases when people are involved in assistance in case of emergencies such as floods, earthquakes, tsunamis and other similar catastrophies. I have been part of teams which have been deployed on extremely short notice and sent to foreign countries with supplies or equipment for rapid intervention. In many cases we were given some name of a small river or some other geographic entity, but had not clue if that place was North or South of where we were. In most cases locals, overwhelmed by the catastrophy were of no help. Caravans of much needed supplies are simply stuck because they cannot identify their destination. Any possibility of fast identification of the destination can be critical and these are the types of readers I was trying to reach. The articles of rivers was just a first step. The second was to add maps of the river, which I did for the upper tributaries of the Bistrita River in Romania.
While a few people did understand the rational - I have received correspondence from Botswana, requesting me to help produce this type of information (unfortunately I do not have the required maps of Botswana), I have found out that Wikipedia is definitely not the place where this information should be stored. The schoolboy mentality is prevalent, and people who do not understand the issues or their importance, simply delete information, which, as indicated before, could potentially even save lives. I regret having believed that Wikipedia could be used by professionals and will probably try to find some other site which should specialize on geographic information required for emergency intervention.
As far as the discrimination regarding various countries - in particular Romania - is concerned, this is not a theoretical case. If you have the curiosity to look at the English language Wikipedia, you will be able to assess that articles on villages of Germany, Poland and other countries have been written and kept even if these settlements had less that 50 inhabilants. However, in the case of Romania, ALL articles regarding villages have been deleted (some information regarding them has been included in articles regarding the communes) - even for villages of historical importance. An example to prove this is the case of the village of Mărăşti, which was the site of one of the major battles of WWI - but does not deserve an article in Wikipedia. This is just to tell you that the statement about discrimination against second class countries was not directed at you, but at en:Wikipedia in general.
While these issues should be discussed before decisions are take on the articles this has not been done.
A acknowledge your merits in producing a schoolboy type article for the Arieş River. But this does not correct the basic flaw of Wikipedia which is completely useless for professionals. Regards Afil (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Shzdya[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of a string of useless redirects DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks useless, but I don't understand it... Peridon (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That would be like having est-tay redirect to Pig Latin because it is a word in Pig Latin. @Peridon, Shzdya is mentioned in the picture in Faux Cyrillic. "Pepper" @ 21:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_19&oldid=1146310690"