Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 16, 2013

The Devil's Cut[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) 13:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect made just to claim a name... The Banner talk 22:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, and disambiguation pages can be created
  2. Per WP:NMUSIC, "Appropriate redirects from the subject's name and entries in disambiguation pages should be created to help readers find such information".
  3. Blabbermouth.com published [an article] about The Devil's Cut in February 2013, which is likely enough for a redirect, albeit not enough for a full fledged article (in that it lacks a track listing and a release date) --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create Devil's cut as disambig, redirect to that. Like a lot of titles, this borrows a phrase that sees other usage. Far and away the most Ghits are for Jim Beam's "Devil's Cut" bourbon; in our own pages we also have two book title hits in works by Michael Laskey and Clive King as well as the White Wizzard album, and there are plenty of other Ghits. All of these are minor mentions within the article, and I can't see making any of them the sole target of this redirect, though each of them has some claim to it (with the bourbon's being by far the strongest). Disambiguation is really the only reasonable solution, and we should allow for the uses out there that do not use the article prefix (e.g. various place names I came across). Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Once "The Devil's Cut" article is created, since this is the only thing that uses the exact words, a hatnote should be placed at the top of the album article if and when it is created. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 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.

Paul Frampton cocaine syndicate[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 delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially a G10. Completely fails WP:RNEUTRAL. There is no such thing as a "cocaine syndicate" associated with the target bio, other than in the creator's opinion. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 04:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a court verdict in Argentina with findings about the named person's involvement trafficking cocaine from associates in Bolivia to other associate(s) he had teleconferenced with in Belgium. What's a better descriptor for them as a collective? I resisted employing the term 'gang', because that implies initiation criteria and gang colours, gang signs .. that sort of thing.Tramadul (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the objection is for the purpose of fixing on a softer name for this smuggling cabal of which Paul Frampton alone is the face, I don't know what that may be. To call it eg. the "Feldman-'Milani' smuggling group", runs into the problem that Milani is a real person who objects to association with it and who was never actually in it. Any renaming must retain its tag to Feldman, to be obvious, until the name of another person or place or activity arises which surpasses his in anchoring the public's perception of them.Tramadul (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a clear violation of WP:BLP and should be deleted immediately. There are no sources showing that there is a cabal/syndicate/ring named after the subject. Single editor is going after this living person and violating so many policies in the process that the article also needs looking into. First Light (talk) 14:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - It goes without saying that it should be removed immediately. It appears that Tramadul's singular mission is to destroy Paul Frampton's reputation, as he did once again with this outrageous edit at Mule (smuggling). He has been warned numerous times in the BLPN discussion, on the Frampton talk page, and in many edit summaries, about his highly inappropriate behavior. His actions indicate that he's not going to stop this massive disruption of the article. He needs to be taken to AN/I by a registered user before more damage is done. 76.189.111.2 (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have supplied content into the PF article which relates to smuggling and other content which relates to physics. I know more about the first than second. Also I have linked to the article in other articles which relate to smuggling subject matter, and others which relate to physics. I feel much more qualified in the first subject area than the second, but I don't ignore the second altogether. The knowledge of the syndicate's operations adds to comprehensiveness in Wikipedia coverage on Latin American drug crime & cocaine trade to Europe. Please talk this through because there is a solution out there of the appropriate shorthand way to refer to the syndicate in question.Tramadul (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as attack page The redirect implies that Frampton leads a cocaine syndicate, which clearly couldn't be further from the truth. Sound like he was just a mule, and a deceived one at that. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete due to BLP concerns. Location (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as it violates WP:BLP. JoeSperrazza (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G10 - a singular occurance, which may well have been a mistake, does not a syndicate make. WP:BLP. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 16 March 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.

List of Districts of England by Population Density[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. Although this redirect was never actually tagged for deletion, the consensus below is unanimous for keeping and the nominators rationale is weak so I don't think relisting this after tagging would lead to any other outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it falls foul of R3. Launchballer 21:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't get it. What's wrong with this? What's implausible about confusing Districts of England with English Districts? Or is it the caps? What's implausible about someone not knowing whether to use caps or lowercase? I don't see any misspellings, am I missing something? Ego White Tray (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably just the caps, however I see no point for it. I've done a search and no other site on the world wide web links to it. List of districts of England by population density would be better.--Launchballer 22:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We always error on the side of keep with redirects, cause we don't know who's using it. A person looking for this who is familiar, but not expert, with the way we title articles is highly likely to type the text of this redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#K3. Someone certainly could reasonably search by this word order. The caps don't matter in this day and age. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible search term and harmless. --BDD (talk) 20:48, 29 March 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_March_16&oldid=1138579003"