Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 25

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 25, 2012

Wikipedia:Scott Xavier

[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 deleted as WP:CSD#G6. —Kusma (t·c) 08:33, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable redirect from wikipedia-space to article-space for an article about an obscure magician. bobrayner (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete. Redirects resulting from moving pages created in the wrong namespace to where they should be come under criterion G6 per recent consensus at WT:CSD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Confusion reigns around this article. There's also a mainspace redirect of Scott Xavier to the actual article Xavier Scott. But the magician's name is Scott Xavier, not Xavier Scott. AFAICS both redirects should be deleted and Xavier Scott should be moved to Scott Xavier (assuming notability). --Stfg (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd be happy with a CSD; I wasn't sure, and if in doubt it's better to take the option which allows the community a chance to discuss. :-) On another point, the target article itself may be an AfD candidate but I don't want to muddy the waters any further what with the transposed names, cross-namespace redirects, copyvio images on Commons (recently deleted), and so on - will leave the AfD til after the dust settles. bobrayner (talk) 23:04, 25 July 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.

Leading from the rear

[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) 14:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful redirect; the phrase 'leading from the rear' is not used on the target page. In so far as it does have a logical connection with the target, this phrase seems like a POV/pejorative description of the operation. This used to redirect to Leading from behind, which made more sense; when that article was deleted at AFD in June, this one should have been deleted as well. Robofish (talk) 13:55, 25 July 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.

MasterChef All-Stars

[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. Ruslik_Zero 17:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unambiguous malplaced redirect, there is no other MasterChef franchise hasn't have an All-Star version. ApprenticeFan work 13:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is unclear from your nomination whether you are saying the Australian series is the only one to have an 'All stars' series or whether other national versions have (had) one as well. EIther way this shouldn't be deleted as it is a helpful search term. If Australia's is the only one then keep. If there are others then disambiguate. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In regard on this, the franchise itself has never done an All-Star version before, retarget and disambiguate to MasterChef#International versions. ApprenticeFan work 03:09, 26 July 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.

Flag committee

[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. The consensus is that the present redirect is not helpful, that the earlier material in the history is a POV fork of Flag of India, and that while there is potential for an article on this subject, there is nothing here than would help towards creating one, so the title is better as a redlink. JohnCD (talk) 14:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Flag committee" is such a vague term. Why should it direct to "Flag of India"? I am sure many other countries, states, sports clubs, etc have flag committees. This redirect should be deleted. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 06:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this is not a WP:POVFORK , this article is about the work done by the Flag Committee , appointed by Congress working Committee during 1931 during freedom struggle. this article will capture all the information how they have reach to the conclusion on tricolor. on Talk:Flag of India other editor's seems agreed to the Original work moreover User:SpacemanSpiff has not respond after original handwriting produced , who fails his claim. work of gandhi has explicitly request to Sikh to talk AICC for the proposal, who appointed the committee. this article should be kept to complete the research on the work done by them. --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 09:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting increasingly ridiculous, as has been explained before, he's simply misrepresenting the sources, and it's likely due to a language problem. Eitherways, this is a classic example of WP:POVFORK that was redirected. —SpacemanSpiff 09:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
seems like you have some issue with my presence , probably I request you to extend your business and Instead of narrowing down research on subjects let others to complete their research work on different issues in depth. You are most welcome to prove the your point to your level best. --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Dilpreet: Whatever content you need to add regarding the committee should go in the main article of Flag of India. There is no reason to make a separate article for that. If after discussion on the Talk page it is decided to not have this content, it will not be kept in any way, in the main article or in any other newly created article. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 12:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, write an article or disambiguate. Scanning through the talk page linked above, I can see that there is consensus against much of what Dilpreet Singh wants to introduce to the Flag of India article (mostly due to lack of sources I think), and this history of this page does show it was created to include the rejected material, and redirecting forks back to the main article is standard practice. However 'flag committee' is a very generic term, google results show mentions of them in Wikipedia articles regarding several flags including Canada (Great Canadian flag debate seems the most prominent use, but see below), Isle of Wight, Iceland, China and the United Nations; there are undoubtedly many others. More generally there are flag committees for hundreds if not thousands of smaller political units (down to town and village level), clubs (particularly scouting and motorsport related) and other organisations (international, hyper-local and everything in between) have flag committees. None of these, not even the Canadian example, are the primary topic for the phrase "flag committee", and even among just national flag committees, India's is not prominent.
    This still leaves the question about what we should do with the redirect, and the one thing I'm certain of is that it shouldn't be a redirect as there is no suitable target. We could have an article here discussing the concept of a flag committee and giving examples of why they are or are not used. Whether there are enough sources or enough encyclopadic material for this I don't know either way. Alternatively we could have a disambiguation page linking to the flag articles that discuss committees, but they are almost all just mentions rather than significant parts of the article I'm not sure how useful it would be. If neither of those work then deletion is probably best. As a simple sum of parts phrase, there is no scope for an entry at Wiktionary so a soft-redirect is not an option. If sufficient sourced enclopaedic information is found to sustain more than a section at the main flag of India article (which I doubt) then the article should be named specifcally for India (Indian Flag Committee or somesuch). Whatever course of action is chosen, protection/salting should be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good analysis, Thryduulf, although I fully understand why this was redirected as a POV fork - that is what it was, regardless of what it might be. Deletion seems to be most appropriate. - Sitush (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf your response looks more genuine , however labeling it as POV fork is a unbelievable to me. If you are working on some subject all related stuff on the way should be address properly. secondly on concern talk page I am still waiting for the disagreement(If any) from others since I produce Original writing of the Gandhi , who speak more louder to denies the earlier claim by other editor's. Finally I definitely need a page either Flag committee or a Indian Flag committee to write about in depth of committee who's flag was adopted by AICC at the end. Committe has work alot to reach to conclusion and replace the complete flag and gave new definition to it. On the talk page every single point is put up in detail with the references. --Dilpreet Singh (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And your arguments were rejected for numerous sound policy-based reasons. Since you persist in ignoring them, you are probably not best-placed to create such an article. All this has been explained to you on your own talk page as well as at the article, but this is not the correct venue to pursue that matter further. You have been told what appropriate venues are available to you, and also advised that it probably is not worth the effort in this particular situation. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not much familiar with the wiki policy does that make my claim false ? and you(who ever added info) know the policy and you can use the false resource and make false claim a true? one of policy I came across was WP:RS even after I gave four resource still my claim is false ? second I came across consesus , which have been following to reach to the decision. So what else you think we lack that can't produce a quality article on the wiki?--Dilpreet Singh (talk) 13:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of whether it was a POV fork or not, it is currently a redirect, and it is that redirect we are discussing here. This is not the correct venue to discuss the previous content and no arguments you make here can or will change the consensus regarding that. If you think that information is missing from the Flag of India article then you need to discuss that at Talk;Flag of India. However as your existing arguments have been rejected by consensus you need to present different ones before consensus can change, repating the same arguments ad nauseum is regarded as Disruptive editing (see WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT). If content has been rejected for inclusion at one article, creating a new article to bypass that rejection is exactly the definition of a POV fork. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, I may need intention of other editor's on concern talk page. I request for deletion of this article instead of redirect as it serve no use and wasting a valuable resource which can be used later for other valuable article. If need persist Indian Flag committee is a better name for the same.--Dilpreet Singh (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This could easily be used to redirect to Betsy Ross, so vague as it is. There have been many flag committees. A Canadian Parliamentary Committee selected the current Canadian flag, so that's just as good a target. Salt due to POVpushing concerns. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 02:37, 27 July 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.

File:07mckay1 190.jpg

[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. JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The picture of Jim McKay was taken in 2002. redirect created due to a file move to File:James Kenneth McManus - Jim McKay.jpg DBigXray 06:46, 25 July 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.

Wikipedia:IAMIGNORINGYOU

[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 per WP:CSD#G7 by Nyttend. Thryduulf (talk) 07:03, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Superfluous. We have plenty of redirects for this, this is more confrontational than the rest, new, not used. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 00:03, 25 July 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.


WP:IWON'TLISTEN, WP:IWON'THEARYOU, WP:IWONTHEARYOU

[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are three additional equivalent REDIRECTs (created the same time WP:IWONTLISTEN was created) that got missed at the speedily-closed Deletion thread, could they be removed as well?: WP:IWON'TLISTEN, WP:IWON'THEARYOU, WP:IWONTHEARYOU. Thanks for consider. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions denied: Diff1 Diff2 Diff3 --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:40, 29 July 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_July_25&oldid=1138578278"