Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 6, 2013

MobiSystems OfficeSuite[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. Over two weeks with no objections to the proposal so it seems uncontroversial. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was checking two times why I clicked that link: actually that redirect was likely created not to get removed of that software comparison because of "WP:WTAF". If the softrware doesn't meet the WP:N then it shouldn't get a redirect. mabdul 22:31, 6 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.

Shake You Up[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) 11:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been viewed 38 times in 90 days. this is a pointless re-direct and pointless page created by a growing trend of users creating a page for every song on an album and redirecting to the parent album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:32, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And other album songs: Stop the Clocks (Leona Lewis song), Favourite Scar, When It Hurts (Leona Lewis song), Fingerprint (song) and Sugar (Leona Lewis song). — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep - I would say delete, as there is no chance of them charting now and there isn't really any info for each one, but if they are deleted, it is only a matter of time before someone does exactly the same as me and creates the redirect, or creates a barely there article, then we will have a problem of recreation of deleted redirects. I've seen that happen before, so it's better to just leave it. They haven't caused any problems, but bringing up these discussions have created a problem. Same for "I to You" and "Un love Me" discussions just below.  — AARON • TALK 19:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are not viable search terms per the page view statistics. Bringing up these discussions doesn't create a problem. What problem has been created? As for them being recreated I would find that hard to believe... its a fairly small and recent issue with page-redirects being created for every song on an album. There's thousands of albums which don't have page redirects for every song on the album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 21:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious, what do you believe is the necessary number of hits before a redirect is "viable", and how did you determine that number?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would love to see that Arena (web browser) would get 90 hits per day, simply because I expanded that article that much. So 90 hits per day for a redirect isn't that bad... mabdul 22:34, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the redirects have been used at all makes them viable. –anemoneprojectors– 12:47, 7 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.

I to You[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) 11:42, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been viewed 34 times in 90 days. this is a pointless re-direct and pointless page created by a growing trend of users creating a page for every song on an album and redirecting to the parent album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-There's no minimum number of hits needed to justify a redirect. The song itself may not be notable, but the article on the album contains information relevant to it. Ergo, redirect.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that the redirects have been used at all makes them viable. –anemoneprojectors– 12:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per my comments above.  — AARON • TALK 14:52, 7 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.

Un Love Me[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) 11:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been viewed 19 times in 90 days. this is a pointless re-direct and pointless page created by a growing trend of users creating a page for every song on an album and redirecting to the parent album. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 19:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The fact that the redirects have been used at all makes them viable. –anemoneprojectors– 12:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per my comments above.  — AARON • TALK 14:52, 7 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.

Moon landings were faked[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) 11:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that this template was created to express a POV or in bad faith of any sort; however, it is still a POV statement. This is an issue because when you type "Moon landings" into the search bar, this appears as an autofill option. Since it appears to be mostly unused, I see no reason to keep this in light of the POV issues.  Ryan Vesey 07:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Ryan. I agree it doesn't have to be bad faith, but it's disturbing to have an article title (well OK, a redirect) which is also an unqualified POV statement. It's not as it it is a book or film title or something, where there might be a (shaky?) case for it ... it's just a statement. It's particularly perplexing when it shows up by default when you start typing it in. It's like - it's fair enough that we have an article called Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories but I'd be pretty disturbed by a redirect to it called Barack Obama is a Kenyan Muslim communist - it just seems to abandon the NPOV high ground that article titles usually, and should, occupy. Cheers DBaK (talk) 09:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's some redirect 101 for you - when there is a potentially POV title for a topic, there should be a redirect. POV applies to articles, it never applies to redirects. A person who has no idea what the article is called will likely search for this phrase or something similar. The point of redirects is to get the reader to the correct article, and to correct their misconceptions there. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: thanks very much for that. I looked for "Redirect 101" but failed to find it. I did, though, find WP:RNEUTRAL which certainly supports your position. As a consequence I am thinking of changing my view, above. However, even taking that on board, I still think that it's a terrible titleoid, in a way that I am not sure that I can explain clearly. It is that it is actually a sentence, a proper grammatical structure making the claim. This seems to be to be very very odd - surely we don't usually do this, but rather have title and redirects which are just a subject line for an article, not a sentence?! Forgive me if I am not making myself clear but I really don't think we should have redirects which are so clearly the claim as a statement, rather than a title. The target article, after all, is called Moon landing conspiracy theories rather than Moon landings were a conspiracy to defraud the public or something. Having said that I note that at WP:RNEUTRAL they give the example of Barack Obama Muslim rumor → Barack Obama presidential primary campaign, 2008 (yes, I know, never mind) but in fact the redirect Barack Obama is a Muslim does, to my great surprise, exist - so that destroys my logic or at least damages it. Hmmm. I think I will have to change my view. It hurts, but ... :) DBaK (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Grrrr sassle frassle etc per Muttley. DBaK (talk) 14:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In regards to WP:RNEUTRAL, a non-neutral redirect that is unlikely to be useful can be deleted. The redirect is used very sparingly. I think the damage done since the redirect appears in the search bar as if it were an article is worse than the utility of the redirect. I'll ask at WP:VPT if there's a way to have this redirect not show up there. Ryan Vesey 15:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't title articles with sentences, but people do search for sentences. Redirects exist for ways that people may reasonably be expected to search for a subject. LadyofShalott 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible redirect. Not exactly the best one for the job but it is valid.--Lenticel (talk) 02:15, 8 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.

Polygen[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. --BDD (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

At the time the redirect was created, polyvalence included a definition of polyvalence or multivalence plus links to some titles containing poly-. In January 2013 I reworked polyvalence into a DAB. I'm not sure what the relationship between "polygen" and "polyvalence" is. Cnilep (talk) 04:31, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • repoint to Polygene? as a mispelling. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Polygene per Mangoe, actually I thought of having it point to Polygon but "e" and "o" is a bit far from each other in the standard QWERTY keyboard.--Lenticel (talk) 02:13, 8 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_6&oldid=1141906339"