Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 25[edit]

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

Singalongability[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 09:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I PRODded this when it had content, and it was then converted to a redirect. I don't believe that makes any sense. The topic this did cover is not actually related to the target article, and as such the target article does not mention this term, thus making this redirect invalid. Actually, it seems they merged the content, but it is not actually the same topic so I have undone that merge. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: the brief search shows that this word is mainly used in relation to music, so probably this redirect is misleading, and I see no good music-related target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as G1 patent nonsense. I have absolutely no evidence that this is a real word. User:Davidfreesefan23 (talk) 21:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: G1 applies to pages with patent notice being the content; redirects have no content, so they just don't qualify. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:09, 27 March 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.

Philippe Lacaille[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Multiple redirects (with variations on name spellings) for survivors of an aircraft accident, no mention in article of the names of the survivors. Unlikely that multiple survivors are ever notable in aircraft accidents and no real encyclopedic reason to create redirects for them all MilborneOne (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I don't see the purpose or use cases for these redirects. They definitely aren't plausible search terms and don't have useful editing history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonyms. Possible WP:BLP1E issue as well--Lenticel (talk) 01:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I suspect that these redirects were created in response to the precedent of redirects for the victims of the September 11th tragedy. 1) I have never been comfortable with that precedent and 2) there is no such precedent for the survivors of a tragedy. Rossami (talk) 13:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:BLP1E...William 18:55, 26 March 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.

Zemgus Girgensons[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 09:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing in the target article about him. Edgars2007 (Talk/Contributions) 14:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. On the contrary, the name is listed in third-to-last line in the first country roster on the target page. That page does resolve to a circular redirect but that's a cleanup issue for the target article, not a reason to delete the redirect. Rossami (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:46, 25 March 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.

Reza Alamati[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 18:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing in the target article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as probable vandalism. The creator made the page on 1 Feb with unsourced content about an alleged Iranian political activist. That article includes highly suspicious and sometimes self-contradictory claims. The only reference on the page was an inexplicable link to a company in Germany. A little over a month later, the creator overwrote most of the content with spam about that same German company. I see no evidence that this was a good-faith contribution. It should have been nominated to AfD rather than turned into a redirect but at this point, it should simply be deleted. Rossami (talk) 14:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: all ddg search results either come from Wikipedia or are related to a German Company (probably for the same reason, as German Wikipedia fails to find such person), so it was probably a try at promoting the company. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:52, 25 March 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.

User:Monroem/Scott Sehon[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 Blanked. Ruslik_Zero 09:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. User subpage that redirects to a Wikipedia article. Monroem created Scott Sehon and maybe this was a sandbox type of thing. However, are user pages supposed to redirect to a Wikipedia article? Maile66 (talk) 01:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there is not normally any problem with user subpages redirecting to article space, generally they're fine unless they're being deceptively or confusingly presented, neither of which apply here. Such redirects are quite common in situations like this where an article has been developed in userspace before being moved to article space. Such redirects are often useful for a short time after the move, and although September 2010 was quite a while back now it's not actually doing any harm. I've left a note on Monroem's talk page, although they aren't currently active. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thanks. Maile66 (talk) 14:24, 25 March 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.

WikiFur[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. Lack of notability is not a reason to delete a redirect. There are a lot of non-notable redirects from slang terms on the Wikipedia. Mentioning in the target article is desirable but not strictly required. In addition, this redirect serves an important goal: preventing recreation of a non-notable article. The redirect is also not confusing or harmful in any other way. So, I do not see any reason that can justify its deletion under applicable policy. Ruslik_Zero 12:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect requires deletion, not sourced in the page it directs to or anywhere else. Completely non-notable. -badmachine 23:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, all of the links are part of external links from "notable" furry pages. The majority of them have also been added by the website's owner. -badmachine 23:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this seems to be a WikiFauna-related stuff that accidentally landed in main namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, that's not what it is. I take it you are unfamiliar with the weird world of "furries"? This redirect is essentially advertising for a (non WMF) furry wiki. As it is not one of the subjects of the target article, delete. This may actually qualify for speedy deletion as blatant advertising, but since we're here we might as well make it official so it can't be recreated. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The WikiFauna-related was supposed to mean related to labeling wikipedians in ways similar to WikiFauna, though in any case it is clearly related to at least some other wiki's WikiWhateverStuff, which should be generally discriminated in main namespace IMHO. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what you mean by "not one of the subjects of the target article". The links goes right to the text which mentions it: "The Internet contains a multitude of furry websites and online communities, such as art community websites Fur Affinity, Inkbunny, SoFurry and Furocity; social networking sites Furry 4 Life and FurNation; and WikiFur, a collaborative furry wiki." The initial redirect was created (by another user, I'd note) in part to encourage people to not keep creating the article. If you want justification for its presence on furry fandom, try these third-party mentions of its use as a reference. It has also been nominated for this year's Ursa Major Awards. GreenReaper (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as self-promotion.--Lenticel (talk) 01:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because deletion contravenes WP:WEB's guidance for web content that does not meet the general notability criteria. While WikiFur is known as a reference for information about furry fandom (see sources above), it has not itself been covered by reliable sources to the level which would justify an article of its own; therefore, per WP:WEB, the fact of its existence as a furry reference site was merged into the article about furry fandom. The title was redirected, again per WP:WEB: "Appropriate redirects from the subject's name should be created to help readers find such information." As a bonus, the redirect has discouraged creation by inexperienced users who lack adequate sources for four years, after three previous AfDs. GreenReaper (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per WP:SOAP and WP:COI I have checked GreenReaper's vote. For one, WikiFur is not cited in the target article, only mentioned among a handful of other unsourced websites. Two, the links he provided do not establish WikiFur as a notable part of the furry community, they only provide links to certain pages. But for the most part, as owner of the website, his extremely vocal support is not compliant with Wikipedia's policies (one more, see WP:SOAP and WP:COI) about advertisement/self-promotion. In my opinion, this need not apply for the other administrators, but I leave that up to the community. -badmachine 19:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this edit, User:Badmachine struck out the comment of another user. I'm sorry but that is not allowed. You may comment on other's comments (including noting potential conflicts of interest), may fix indentation and minor formatting errors and may redact personal attacks but making any other changes to the attributed comments of another editor is prohibited. It is up to the closing administrator to weigh the merits of the respective arguments. Removing the strike-out. Rossami (talk) 19:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologise, I chose to do so after repeatedly seeing users preform the same action across Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I stand on my belief that GreenReaper's input is not appropriate for this discussion as per WP:COI and WP:SOAP. -badmachine 19:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • My input has included a) the policy relevant to this situation, and b) reliable sources which mention WikiFur as a furry encyclopedia or information source in their coverage. If you take them away, certainly your case is stronger. GreenReaper (talk) 20:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have already established the issue with said sources, and the policy cited states that it is not for promotion or advertisement of a non-notable web entity :) -badmachine 21:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This title has a long and troubled history. Content existed at the title for years. It was repeatedly nominated for deletion (here, recreated and again nominated here, endorsed at DRV here and recreated and again nominated a third time. The clear consensus through that 2008 debate is the Wikipedia ought not to have an article at that title. The page was turned into a redirect following that last AfD deletion. Since then, the redirect has been very successful at quietly enforcing the AfD decision by preempting the re-creation of deleted content. This is also an example of a redirect from a non- or semi-notable sub-topic to the more notable parent. Keep as redirect until and unless there is sufficient evidence to justify overturning the prior article deletions with content. Rossami (talk) 13:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects are not placeholders, we have WP:SALT specifically for such cases, and it should be applied here right after the title is deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My issue here was that there aren't any reliable sources, anywhere that would encourage the keeping of this redirect. I believe that just because a single site has (or had in the case of WikiFur) a web presence doesn't mean we need a page or redirect for it. I'd recommend checking out the AfD's for myg0t and bantown to see more of the same. -badmachine 16:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have, above, pointed out four separate reliable sources that refer to WikiFur as an information source/reference for information about furry fandom. The notability standards for the inclusion of information in Wikipedia are different to those which govern whether a topic has its own article. A redirect is not an article; it is there to aid the user in getting to the right article, which in this case is furry fandom. GreenReaper (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Salting is inappropriate. The redirect serves a useful purpose, is recommended by policy, and has been around for almost four years without any attempt to recreate the article. GreenReaper (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Salting is an option but as has been noted in other discussions, it is a particularly hostile option that creates frustration and confusion among new users. Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit". Permanent page-protection creates a space where that rule is not true. Sometimes we must protect but Wikipedia policy and precedent says we should limit that to the minimum degree and duration necessary to defend the project. If a redirect can successfully preempt unwanted content, it is preferred over salting as a general rule. Rossami (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't argue in my nomination as I didn't feel myself in position for that, but still I believe that being "a particularly hostile option that creates frustration and confusion among new users" has nothing to deal with appropriate cases for this tool like this one (and that one also FWIW). There are many things on Wikipedia that qualify for this definition with WP:GNG being the best match, but that doesn't stop people from nominating articles for deletion and actually deleting them. Similarly, here we have a page that was deleted multiple times, and if it gets deleted and salted, the new users would be presented with a deletion log right under the search box. If this deletion log doesn't make people think twice before recreating the article, they deserve hostility. Furthermore, permanent page creation protection doesn't hurt the ability to edit Wikipedia – if this resource would ever become notable, the article could be submitted to WP:AFC and moved to main namespace upon being accepted. So the only right that indeed suffers from permanent creation protection is a right to vandalize, which is a gross net benefit for Wikipedia. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:03, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's an interesting point. The practice of using redirects pre-dates the change to the software so it would present the deletion log. To be honest, it also predates the ability to protect a title from creation. Maybe we should open a discussion about the general practice and see if consensus has changed. That should be a centralized discussion, though. I am reluctant to impose a new standard on a one-off basis. Rossami (talk) 00:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Discouraging recreation of the article is a secondary goal; a comment directs editors to review the talk page. The primary purpose is to direct readers to the article covering the topic. GreenReaper (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, could you please avoid repeated arguments. Your position is already understood and noted by all the participants and it will be evaluated by the closing admin. The coverage of the topic in the target violates WP:V policy and should be removed; the search term is implausible for anything but the site; the site is never close to being worth mention anywhere on Wikipedia, so this redirect isn't useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • A good faith attempt to create an article on what is later judged to be a non-notable topic is not vandalism. While I wouldn't encourage it at this time, it wouldn't be entirely unreasonable to attempt recreation after four years (in which time the site left Wikia for its own hosting, added ten language editions, grew by 150-200%, and has had increased coverage from third-parties). Salting says either "this could not feasibly be a topic" or "this article has been created too frequently", neither of which is the case here. GreenReaper (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not sure whether creating article that evidently shouldn't be created per WP:N can be called "good faith attempt". Still 5 re-creations in two years is a bit too much. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 05:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The log shows four deletions; one appears to be a speedy, which was restored, so it was created three times from 2006-8. I supported the first AfD. GreenReaper (talk) 05:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, basically for the reasons given above by Rossami. I'm the one who created the redirect following the 3rd AfD (after discussing with the admin who deleted the article), and my primary purpose in doing so, as explained in Talk:WikiFur, was to fend off attempts to recreate it again by novices who might not be familiar with the article's history. mwalimu59 (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, the two users, Mwalimu59 and GreenReaper, vouching for the redirect to be kept are both administrators of the site (one being the owner). Does WP:COI apply here? -badmachine 15:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • My argument is based on WP:WEB, but if you want to go there . . . I noticed that you have a bunch of ED editors listed as friends on your user page, two of which have been blocked indefinitely. Users associated with ED have made deleting content about furry topics in Wikipedia a mission, and actively promoted deletion of prior instances of the WikiFur article. I do not think we would be having this argument if the topic were, say, a well-known reference website for knitting. GreenReaper (talk) 16:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please provide evidence of said "mission". As for the knitting argument, I would definitely nominate anything along those lines for deletion if they were unreferenced, or blatant advertising, as I feel WikiFur is. I didn't know what WikiFur was till some trolls made an account under a username I use on several other sites, I was curious and came here for information. I stand with my position that WikiFur not notable, and there is a definite conflict of interest with GreenReaper. I wouldn't support Sherrod or Garrett if they wanted to advertise ED on here, so why should I do the same with anyone else? -badmachine 17:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Additionally, here are some quick statistics I got together:
        The last 100 edits of WikiFur have been made up by 16 users.
        • 5 of those were admins
        • 6 were IPS
        • 2 were spammers/trolls who are now blocked
        Out of the thousands of members of the furry fandom, this is a comparatively tiny website to say, FurAffinity. If anything, it's a personal project of the admins. -badmachine 17:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Compared to the whole world, Wikipedia has a relatively small editorship as well; its output is also dominated by administrators, despite there only being ~750 of them active. WikiFur has a more liberal promotion policy, based largely on a consistent history of content creation and participation (hence the title, colleague), and so most of our regular contributors have additional rights. On the English WikiFur, our eight currently-active colleagues provide roughly half the persistent edits (stats), which is consistent with findings relating to Wikipedia ("At the end of this period, the top 10% of editors (by edit count) were credited with 86% of PWVs, the top 1% about 70%, and the top 0.1% (4200 users) were attributed 44% of PWVs, i.e. nearly half of Wikipedia's 'value'). Still, this is all irrelevant. What matters is that third-party reliable sources have identified WikiFur as a furry fandom reference site. This is why WikiFur is mentioned in the article about furry fandom, and that in turn justifies the redirect. There is no better place for it to go, and it is more useful than not having one at all. GreenReaper (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unreferenced, I may add. -badmachine 18:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • I provided the references in my first comment to this discussion. I imagine you could find more; these were just those I had to hand. GreenReaper (talk) 18:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • None of them state that WikiFur is a notable piece of the furry community, rather, they reference one or two articles on it because local reporters have no better source than Google when it comes to obscurities. Additionally, the last one is in French. -badmachine 18:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's not true. Three of the four cited sources point towards WikiFur for general information. In one case this is because the furry being interviewed recommended it as a source of information; in the others, the reporters evaluated WikiFur themselves as a furry site worthy of note. The other quotes from WikiFur's article on fursona, treating it as a source. The language is irrelevant; 20 Minuten is a third-party reliable source. If anything, it highlights WikiFur's multilingual nature. I've also done interviews for furry-specific publications Anthro, Furry 101, FurCast [73:16+] and Hugs; in each case, the primary basis for the interview was my status as the founder of WikiFur, indicating its notability within the fandom. GreenReaper (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect is not harmful, and indeed seems to be providing a benefit to Wikipedia by discouraging the recreation of an article by those unfamiliar with the history of the title. Given that the redirect is working, salting would be inappropriate, especially since there is a good faith argument that the subject's notability may have changed since 2008 (although I've not evaluated the argument and so have no opinion on it). Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Doesn't the argument about the possible change in notability actually show that this redirect is close enough to stop working? As the likeliness of page re-creation goes up, salting becomes a better choice, as it allows to at least somehow validate the article in WP:AFC before it does any harm. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This argument amounts to "the more likely it is to be of sufficient notability for an article, the more we must ensure that it is harder to create an article". Salting is meant for those topics which should never be articles, or which have been created repeatedly within a short period of time against community consensus, which is patently not the case. GreenReaper (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - advertisement Sparklerainbow87 (talk) 16:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Advertisement and generally unrelated in my honest opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.123.99.139 (talk) 21:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fore the record I went back to sign that and I was edit conflicted :) 64.123.99.139 (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think WikiFur deserves to be mentioned in the furry fandom article because of the mentions in external sources that GreenReaper links to in this post. If we mention WikiFur in that article, but it is not itself notable enough to have an article of its own, then the redirect makes sense. I also think that the redirect will be more useful to readers looking for information on WikiFur than the plain search results would be - the current search results for "wikifur" are a little bit jumbled and confusing. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:10, 2 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_March_25&oldid=1138578397"