Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 18, 2013.

1990 Bangladesh pogroms[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. --BDD (talk) 05:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made up title near as I can figure, the article sources call this "Anti-Hindu Violence" Which is where the article now resides. Darkness Shines (talk) 07:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Yes. The old article was a stub with no valid source to establish it as pogrom. - Vatsan34 (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2013 (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.

1992 Bangladesh pogroms[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. --BDD (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per POVTITLE Darkness Shines (talk) 07:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete but Rename the existing article to 1992 Bangladesh Anti-Hindu violence, as only Hindus were attacked in this case too [1] [2]. - Vatsan34 (talk) 10:54, 18 August 2013 (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.

Autocunnilingus[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. Per WP:REDLINK. Ruslik_Zero 12:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Better to have this as a redlink, and thereby encourage someone to write the article. Autocunninlingus is currently mentioned at no point in the cunnilingus article. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete While we should be as flexible as possible, I support the nominator's proposal. Someone seeing the redlink can then lick a new article into shape. Fiddle Faddle 14:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh. You really bent over backwards for that one, didn't you? I mean, it's as if you were salivating at the chance to make a dirty joke. I can almost picture you sticking your tongue out pensively as you pondered the perfect phrasing. — PublicAmpers&(main account • talk • block) 16:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would one not have to bend forwards? There is, of course no such thing as a 'dirty joke' unless one empowers words beyond their meaning. I confess I stuck my tongue out, but was wholly unable to reach anywhere near the target, let alone a conclusion. I must take up Yoga. Fiddle Faddle 16:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cumment. Two possibilities:
  1. Autocunnilingus → Oral sex, where it is munchioned, or
  2. Delete and red link it in Oral sex to stimulate writhing about it. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 00:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it isn't discussed in the target article, it certainly should be. bd2412 T 17:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete. If the target page doesn't discuss it, it should be a redlink (per nom). Also, can we please be a little bit more mature here? Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Also, include it in the target article, but don't link it because that would be a form of autoredirection. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 07:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until the target explains what it is. Siuenti (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2013 (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 as a press source[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. --BDD (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with XNRs to projectspace based on things that are really important to readers or editors (e.g. creating a new page), but I don't think this meets that bar. I doubt this is a particularly likely search term, and thus this redirect does more harm than good. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:33, 18 August 2013 (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.

Ahren Elessedil[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 retarget to List of Shannara characters. --BDD (talk) 05:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion. Ahren Elessedil is not even mentioned on the page the redir points to, and there is no source indicating notability, nor connection with that set of characters in the fictional series. N2e (talk) 02:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the assistance. N2e (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2013 (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.

Punch! (Canadian TV series)[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an implausible redirect due to its use of excessive parenthetical disambiguation. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as valid {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}} and {{R from move}}. Dogmaticeclectic, I see you've been trying to get this redirect deleted on-and-off for several months. You may want to read WP:CHEAP: If there's reasonable grounds to think someone might find a redirect helpful (and in this case I'd argue there definitely is—what if someone remembers reading this article before you moved it, and looks it up again?), then there's no harm in keeping it. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The scenario you mentioned is highly unlikely, and it's a slippery slope - should Wikipedia be littered with redirects that were definitely unnecessary originally and would have been deleted but for the fact that they weren't noticed until it was too late to apply WP:R3? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Highly unlikely? This article existed at that title for four years. Four years in which countless people may have linked to it, bookmarked it, remembered its title, or the like. And, umm, WP:R3 wouldn't apply if someone had created this redirect from scratch, since it's neither a typo nor a misnomer. (Note that even if you'd moved this article the day it was created, R3 wouldn't apply; see the third sentence of the criterion.) Basically, the answer to the question "should Wikipedia be littered with redirects that [are] unnecessary?" is yes. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There isn't a single link to this redirect from mainspace, and there are barely any links to it from other Wikipedia pages. Of course, links to this page may exist outside Wikipedia, but given the extremely low number of links within Wikipedia, I find this highly unlikely to be the case. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the default is to keep redirects unless harmful (WP:RFD#DELETE) which this is not. Conversely, as explained above, deletion could be harmful. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PinkAmpersand. That says it all. No harm in keeping, possible harm in deleting. Not saying it's likely, just that it's a matter of weighing the options. --BDD (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2013 (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.

Beyond Human (Teletoon)[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 10:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an implausible redirect due to its use of non-standard parenthetical disambiguation. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per my comments above. To elaborate slightly, the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to delete a redirect from a previous title are, in my opinion, only the following: if the move was bad-faith (i.e., vandalistic); if the move was in error (e.g., a typo), and was quickly fixed, and the error is not itself a likely search term; or if the move was good-faith but severely problematic, due to major content policies like WP:BLP (e.g. So-and-so (athlete) → So-and-so (murderer), where the subject is a murder suspect but hasn't been convicted). The key thing in all of these scenarios is that, presumably, the page would only be located at the title in question for a short period of time, meaning that few, if any, people would read the article and expect to find the same content there again, and few, if any, people would create links to that title from external sites. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 05:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The scenario you mentioned is highly unlikely, and it's a slippery slope - should Wikipedia be littered with redirects that were definitely unnecessary originally and would have been deleted but for the fact that they weren't noticed until it was too late to apply WP:R3? Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the default is to keep redirects unless harmful (WP:RFD#DELETE) which this is not. Conversely, as explained above, deletion could be harmful. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per PinkAmpersand. Generally, former titles should be retained as redirects; I see no circumstances here that would warrant an exception. --BDD (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2013 (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/2013_August_18&oldid=1138578693"