Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 10

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 10, 2014.

Hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit

[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) 19:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposed. Target article contains no actual discussion of the phrase. Target article does not support statements in the edit history of the redirect suggesting that "Hyper-timid incrementalist bullshit" is a notable quote by Yglesias. Even if it is a notable quote, that makes it suitable for Wikiquote, not a redirect. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now unless it can be explained in the article. Otherwise this simply looks like an attack retarget. --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add at target.
    • Linkins, Jason (22 December 2008). "Minor Blogging Controversy Yields New Term For The Political Lexicon". Huffington Post. Retrieved 11 November 2014..
I am not sure how "reliable" Huffington post is; I would say like others it is a well-read journal but don't trust its blogs: which is what the article says, in essence. I think it should be noted and I don't think it harmed the target's reputation in any way (the writer is complimentary). I see no BLP. Si Trew (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarifying my nomination: I don't believe this redirect is an attack on Yglesias or that it raises significant BLP issues. The Huffington Post reference certainly does qualify the phrase for a Wikiquote entry. But for Wikipedia purposes, I'd say that a blog post doesn't establish notability for this 4-word phrase, not enough notability to merit the redirect. It also seems highly unlikely to be a search term. Other than a talk page, nothing even links to the redirect. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • But it's not a blog post is it (the Huff article), which is secondary source and quotes from the tertiary source. It's not quotable. I'd add as a side note at the article (which is why I added the ref ready to do so if we decide to) but not put it at wikiquotes if it is not often quoted. Si Trew (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, the term is explained and used in the secondary source but not, as it stands, in the article. That can easily be added if we have consensus to do so. It is not a speedy, since we are discussing whether it should be or not. It cannot be an "uncontentious" delete if it has ended up here. Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 14 November 2014 (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.

Sarbajit Roy

[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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable individual who is associated with a group calling itself 'India Against Corruption' which is not clearly the same 'India Against Corruption' which we have an article about. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It's R to section and I added the section above, I hope that is OK, since "Internal Split" seems relevant to the discussion. Search shows a few results, of which Times of India probably is the most RS, but I can't get to the specific article to quote it. Roy seems to use social media a lot, but is not mentioned at the target, so presumably WP:BLP is ruled out; this edit of 18 October turned it from an article into a redirect, citing continual BLP issues in the edit comment, then a bit of housekeeping by User:Bishonen to tidy up as the section was renamed. I note I cannot edit the R but there is no banner saying it is page-protected (I get "View Source" not "Edit",with twinkle). Wasn't planning to but that seems a bit odd: The target is semi-protected but I see no reason why full-page protection then applies to the R. Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I believe you... did you see already it is double posted here>?! Nice to see you btw Sitush. Si Trew (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No. Can you fix that? I'm clueless in the goings-on at this venue, as you will recall! - Sitush (talk) 13:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought: if your username here is your real name then I suggest that you withdraw from this discussion. They will quite likely find you and then you are in for a bit of a palaver off-wiki. - Sitush (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I always use my real name. They can come and find me. [email protected], if they want. Si Trew (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete IAC (the organisation) is not IAC (the popular movement). As such, any redirect from the former to the latter is inappropriate. Roy himself is not notable, nor for that matter is the organisation that he claims to lead. Sources that refer to him or to it are pretty much invariably rely on him or it as their source. - Sitush (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can see as a possibly inappropriate edit is mine to add the section name, which I badly then wrote "I added the section above"; I didn't add a section to RfD, I added the section name to the RfD. But I see no evidence that this R needs protection. Since according to my talk page I have "massively increased [my] chance of joining the exclusive club of people who are being sued, whose livelihoods and family lives are being wrecked, and who are being forced out of their homes by death threats" perhaps I am not not entitled to a say before I get done in? Si Trew (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Trew, say what you want. You've never got on with me and I've done my best to point out the problem. If you want to be idiotic or a martyr then that is your choice. Perhaps they'll get you, and then there will be no more conflict here. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPA springs to mind. I suggest you drop it, politely. Si Trew (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is an attack. There is nothing more to say here, so dropping it is a default position. - Sitush (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To suggest you will send the boys round to hurt my friends and family, I would definitely consider a personal attack. Si Trew (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is more, there is a Dr. Simon Trew at Sandhurst, a very eminent military historian, as WP:MILHIST well knows. If you were to send the boys round you might likely get him rather than me, which would not be fair on him. I've let them know at the front gate. I do suggest you drop it. His secretary was laughing with me when I said "hello, I'm Simon Trew". I refuse to stop using my real name. Si Trew (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, those were his own claims and the news sources etc just trotted them out. I expected some of his political supporters etc to turn up here but, really, you at least should know better than this. Can you find a report about the virus itself, from around the time it happened? I've never been able to track it down. Independent sources are hard to find: they're mostly just regurgitating his claims. - Sitush (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said, I don't have a problem with removing the redirect, restoring the old version, pruning it of the cruft and then seeing whether it is capable of surviving AfD. The proviso is that we do not link to the India Against Corruption article unless we can find independent verification that the group and the movement are the same (which we haven't yet managed to do). - Sitush (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) An article is a reflection of reliable sources, the "first virus" isn't presented as a claim but as a statement of fact by the RS quoted. IAC isn't the subject's only claim to notability. Though the The Free Press Journal does mention his association with IAC. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Virus creator/ hacker and leading manufacturer of PLCs in Northern India.[4] Yogesh Khandke (talk)
A few notability establishing mentions in RS. (1) Times of India (September, 2006): Constitutional expert.[5] (2) Times of India (November, 2005): Legal commentator on public issues.[6] (3) Times of India (December, 2005) Legal activist against Delhi's illegal industries and unscrupulous power companies.[7] (4) The Tribune (December, 2006) RTI applicant in landmark judgement.[8] (5)Outlook (December, 2008) Freedom of information activist.[9] (6) Hindustan Times (May, 2013) Anti-corruption crusader.[10] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I went through the whole discussion and google it for further analysis; people are divided politically, too fiercely. Though I have high esteem for Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal; that doesn't necessarily influence the subject under debate, Non-Notable with his other activities which have been highlighted by Yogesh Khandke, especially in the Indian Express of October 16, 2005(Pdf format).Sethuramiah (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)— Sethuramiah (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Note: I was there since 29 March 2008 and left Wikipedia on a similar issue like this; I don't want to get into trouble using my main account.Sethuramiah (talk) 01:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : There are literally thousands of such RTI activists & marginal players. Basically, his claims to fame are from a few RTI activities & self-claims. Sarbajit Roy has not achieved anything of suitable magnitude & he is a virtual unknown to the common man. AshLin (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) There are tens of mentions in reliable sources that disagree with you, that refer to him as a cyber law expert, a leading PLC manufacturer in Northern India, creator of India's first virus... (2) "unknown to common man" what kind criteria is that? (3) Non of them are "his claims" as alleged. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This redirect needs to be deleted it is clearly disputed that Sabajit Roy is founder and his association is clearly in dispute and further this discussion is about a RFD discussion is not the place to resolve mostly editorial disputes and is not about an article that has be taken to a Deletion debate and this is being confused here.This discussion is about a redirect that needs to be deleted and this is not a place to discuss about notability or other editorial issues .[11],[12],[13][14]Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Does it mean you are voting to get the redirect deleted and restore the article a particular pre-redirect version? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yogesh Khandke Usually redirect discussion are about whether to keep or delete a redirect and not about the Pre redirect version or any content related issue.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subject has demonstrated notability, independent of his association with IAC, if this discussion is beyond the scope of this forum then this RfD be closed and an AfD be initiated. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IP 93.174.123.136.I had only edited my comments and I had not referred to you or another editor and your edit removed my edit .Further Please go the article talk page on why Self Claim in Hindustan Times was removed.Now not only Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal but also Sri Sri Ravi Shankar [15] Baba Ramdev ,Vincent M Concessao,Mahmood Madani,Mallika Sarabhai amongst others [16] claim to have co founded India Against Corruption.But unlike them Sabajeet Roy's claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL that he founded IAC and lent its name to the movement ,further the claim that Anna Hazare was not even a member of IAC.[17].This is a clear WP:REDFLAG as the movement was clearly covered in the National and International media and which mention Anna Hazare along with Arvind Kejriwal along with as the founder of the movement ,NDTV ,Vancouver Sun ,Washington Post,India Today and other WP:RS sources .We go by Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth and posted it above as you have signed your post below.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh of the Wizards either place your clarifications separately or below mine (WP:REDACT). Both your sources prove Anna Hazare claimed the target article's name from Arvind Kejriwal on 10 Nov. 2012 after he (with Kiran Bedi) got disassociated from the target article movement after an "Internal split" (target redirect) into political and non-political groupings. Your sources show it was Anna Hazare's own "claim" that he founded the target article's movement in October 2010. After Kejriwal later refused to oblige Hazare and Bedi Anna drops IAC brand name claim and the prominent Hindustan Times report which you removed [18] from target article just before this RfD proves the fact that Sarbajit Roy is presently running the target article movement as National Convenor and Roy also claims to own the target article's movement. It is Hindustan Time's report, for the common people, that Roy is now running the campaign after Kejriwal. The newspaper has distinguished Roy's claim to own the IAC campaign (after several past claimants like Hazare for it) as on 3 Sept 2013, and noted Hazare chose not comment when contacted by that newspaper. Keep the target link to section "Internal split" and restore your deletion of sourced content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.174.123.136 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 17 November 2014‎
IP, you are using the same arguments that the IAC sockfarm has been using, sometimes even with the same language. They have been reviewed time and again by a multitude of experienced contributors, with and without good knowledge of India-related matters, and they have consistently been found wanting on policy grounds. The IAC sockfarm are not going to get their way, so I'm not sure why you think you might succeed where they failed. - Sitush (talk) 18:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ANON Pharaoh of the Wizards. I shall not reply to your series of misleading edits which affect the interpretation of replies in their sequence by disregarding talk page guidelines; especially because I cannot understand why your replies with a host of fresh content related editorial unsettled controversies (unsuitable for RfD) are posted above my reply and out of sequence and probably to confuse the closing editor. Also see WP:INDENT
Own Comments
If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead..93.174.123.136 (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ANON Sitush, per nom Non-notable individual who is associated with a group calling itself 'India Against Corruption' which is not clearly the same 'India Against Corruption' which we have an article about.. The notability of the individual is clearly verifiable from reliable sources (in the pre-redirect versions) irrespective of his association with India Against Corruption. The second issue of IAC1 not clearly being IAC2, or IAC2 not clearly being IAC1, or unconnected, etc. is (from WP:LTA/IAC) an unsettled editorial controversy which is discouraged for RfD discussion. 93.174.123.136 (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And these two obsessions - user accounts being "anonymous" and mediation requests not being admissible elsewhere - are two of the pet deflectors of IAC socks. The opinions of this IP need to be discarded as they seem to be block evading. - Sitush (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • IP blocked 5 albert square has now blocked the 93.174.* IP per WP:LTA/IAC. - Sitush (talk) 04:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly unrelated to India Against Corruption --Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 07:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Sitush. This discussion is about the redirect and nobility does not factor into it. If an article were created, it would fail GNG. Yogesh Khandke has brought up articles where Roy offers a quote or two, but this does not satisfy GNG, specifically, "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content.. Having quotes by a subject does not constitute significant coverage. We know nothing about the person from quotes on different subjects. Bgwhite (talk) 08:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "if article was created"? The article was started on 8 Jan. 2011, and it makes no mention of IAC.[19] also if this is an article deletion discussion, let us close this RfD and start an AfD. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been stripped back more than once, Yogesh. I did it, Drmies did it, and I think others did too. The thing was created and repeatedly reinstated by various confirmed socks of India Against Corruption and the info that your present above is nothing much different from that which previously has been stripped out. - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An AfD would almost be pointless as there are no references about him. Yogesh, you haven't shown any. The vast majority of people here also agree. The article created on January 2011 had unreliable Geocities and Yahoo groups as refs, with the Hindustan Times article only quoting him. He wasn't notable when the article was originally created and still isn't notable. Bgwhite (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Four 4 change" is an article about him,[20] and his work: "Ten things that ought to be taught in schools" 3. India against corruption movement: India against corruption movement or Jan Andolan was a non political, collective and organized people’s movement, which formed to ensure a corruption free India. The movement, initiated by anti-corruption crusader Anna Hazare, Sarbajit Roy, Veeresh Malik and others, gave birth to a non-affiliated political party – the Aam Aadmi Party. The students in India should be familiar with this significant mass movement in independent India; a reason why it should be taught in schools as a subject.[21] Please read my previous arguments as these two were shared already. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first one that you link to, Yogesh, is just another set of claims from Roy's mouth. The second one is useless: "Here, thus, for a little understanding I’ve listed top 10 topics that should be taught in Indian schools" - who is the I? There is no author and the source itself is not one I've seen before. Add to that the problem which people claiming to be Roy/his supporters have frequently expressed on Wikipedia etc, ie: that Hazare has nothing to do with them and never has, and we've got a big problem here. - Sitush (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(1) "Today, Roy is the leading manufacturer of programmable logic controls in north India—he writes the software that runs the plastic-moulding models of auto companies." Is in the voice of the authors, how is that a claim? (2) If no author is mentioned then as a convention it is the editorial voice of Hindustan Times. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect as Sarbajit Roy does not have a clear enough link with the IAC movement, which is the subject of the target article. And as the target article currently does not mention Sarbajit Roy, the redirect is not only unwarranted, but confusing to any reader who is directed there. Aside: Right now I have no strong opinion on whether an article on the subject would be justified: there is no way this version would survive an AFD, while my understanding (based on the edit-summaries in the article history) is that the sourcing in this version is problematic too. In any case that is not a discussion for this venue, and if editors believe that the subject is independently notable and that a well-sourced and neutral article can be written to establish that, then the proper path to follow would be Draft -> Mainspace -> Potential AFD. Abecedare (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why the draft when the article exists in main space, why not AfD straight away? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify Yogesh Khandke The link above is from Hindustan Today [23] not Hindustan Times. Further Hindustan Today is a blog and not WP:RS.Further the movement covered in both the national and International press but find little mention of the subject. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, Hindustan Today it is not Hindustan Times, not the same class as the later. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IAC block evasion/meat. - Sitush (talk) 1:05 am, Today (UTC−5)

Keep very well known and notable social worker for genuine activism and successful legal advocacy of social issues. CNN-IBN TV interviewer described Sarbajit Roy as "a man who found time to stall the Delhi sealing drive, have CAS repealed and get telecom operators regulated", corroborated independently by newspaper reports where - Times of India describes him as Constitutional expert Sarbajit Roy, who has also challenged the ministry's (sealing) notification in the high court, "Sarbajit Roy, the petitioner to disconnect electricity connections of illegal industrial units", Economic Times describes Roy's legal activism at UPA government disinclined to implement the NDA government's CAS scheme after Sarbajit Roy's SC petition Romana Busse (talk) 05:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the BIG problem. I can find online from 2 years ago (16 Oct 2012) the Contact details of India Against Corruption movement listed as NGO on an independent business directory service saying Roy and Malik run the outfit. The Aam Aadmi Party's own entry is 8 months later on same directory. Is there any similar exhaustive directory entry anywhere for Anna Hazare's IAC movement ? Romana Busse (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The big problem is that you appear to have misunderstood the big problem ;) The IAC movement that India Against Corruption records was a populist movement, not an organisation. As such, it is not going to be listed as NGO. I'm flabbergasted that someone who has just registered an account manages to find their way to this subject on this page, and your interest in the at least as troubled gender gap issue and in "child protection" (per your use page) is to my mind even more incredible. You don't say that you have used prior accounts but you are proposing to apply to become a trustee, which is presumably of WMIN following the recent resignation there. I'm sorry but this looks very odd to me. Presumably you will not mind me asking for a checkuser here? - Sitush (talk) 05:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why are you winking at me ? I object to your such lewd and sexually colored advances, and all your other innuendo about your BIG problem. To clarify I am applying for the vacant Trusteeship of Wikimedia Foundation which will open next month after some female Trustees are stepping down. What is WMIN ? Is this also some sort of sexual advance and wordplay on "women" ? I'm sure this website has a privacy policy somewhere, and I insist on my complete privacy and safety here, and oppose any illegal efforts to invade my privacy. If you have a problem with the content on the directory website take it up with them directly. Romana Busse (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure any such Whois will also show a social privacy organisation I work with and which contains my complete verifiable address and my assertion of privacy protection to defend against stalkers and Arbcom sanctioned abusers of women like you. Romana Busse (talk) 06:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The campaign to use Wikipedia to promote this individual's notability is enthusiastic but misguided. The sources do not warrant an article on the individual, nor do they warrant a redirect to an article about a group that is not related to what this individual has done (that would be some other article, if the topic were notable). Johnuniq (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A note has been added above to indicate that this isn't a vote, which is good. Have you read the numeros points that mark out the subject as notable, including one source whose title refers to the subject, which describes him as northern India's leading PLC manufacturer, and tens other RS that refer to him as an expert, or a first, explain that away please, this is not a vote. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having some trouble with that "leading PLC manufacturer" description. I've read the sentence in the 2005 thumbnail you cited[24] "Today, Roy is the leading manufacturer of programmable logic controls in north India—he writes the software that runs the plastic-moulding models of auto companies." Writing code for PLCs used in a narrow field hardly makes you a leading manufacturer of PLCs. (I'm not entirely clear on the source either - it's headed as The Indian Express but not from their site.) NebY (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not have a full fledged AfD then, because your view needs to be substantiated by why the plethora of reliable sources are not good enough to give the subject notability. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Esp since your opinion influences others as the one editor above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2014 (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.

Suave Porn

[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) 19:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that Suave Porn should redirect to Rock Star Supernova, an article that doesn't even mention "Suave Porn" The Dissident Aggressor 17:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. She's on porn.com, number 1143. Entirely unrelated to the target, but was created as a redirect eight years ago to this very day, at that time to Supernova (Rock Star band), which then bot tidied up for a double redirect and so on, but nothing else has happened since. < 1 hit/day, excluding the hits the last couple of days I presume because of this discussion. Special:Search for "Suave pornstar" shows up nothing notable. Si Trew (talk) 01:27, 11 November 2014 (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.

Awakeǃ

[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 no consensus. It's fairly clear to me that this is a useless redirect that should not have been created. However, neither can I see evidence that it's harmful. And having stuck around for six months before nomination, it's not quite recent enough for me to delete it on those grounds. As far as I can tell, neither the arguments for or against deletion can be gainsaid. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect includes an obscure Unicode symbol (U+01C3, an IPA symbol representing a retroflex click) in place of the exclamation mark, and is unlikely to ever be required. Jeffro77 (talk) 04:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Twinkle failed to complete some of the steps for registering proposed deletion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not why Twinkle failed. I used the XfD function in Twinkle. It failed to add the correct template. I erroneously added the incorrect template manually because it's been so long since I've done it outside of Twinkle.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of things are typeable using an IME, but it still doesn't make it likely that someone would deliberately search for Awakeǃ (with the retroflex click symbol).--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My understanding is that mapping ǃ to ! is something that should happen automatically in unicode string comparison. If the wikimedia search doesn't silently do the right thing, then that's a bug in the wikimedia software, right? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not sure Unicode collation order helps here; it took me ages to realise from the code charts we were discussing the "exclamation mark" (LATIN LETTER RETROFLEX CLICK),I thought we were on about the A. The Unicode chart says the stop is equivalent to LATIN LETTER EXCLAMATION MARK (1.0) (amongst other things). This cannot be helpful to English readers who use the Latin alphabet: No more than e.g. writing "Αwake!" (that's a greek alpha at the front; "standard" bang at the back). Si Trew (talk) 00:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I may have got more confused with Jeffro's opening comment: I thought the Unicode confused Twinkle. not that the process somehow stopped. I suppose it is harmless, but I still reckon WP:ENGLISH applies. The IME point Thryduulf makes I think can be expanded: a thumbpad IME would not, for English readers, I assume recognise this punctuation as an alveolar click any more than it would recognise my greek A against a latin A. It would do the other (I assume) in different cultures such as Greekland. Si Trew (talk) 00:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Whether you think it is helpful for English speakers or not is irrelevant. What matters is that this is used and that it is harmless. My point about IMEs is solely pointing out that this is not impossible to type. Whether a specific IME recognises this character or not is entirely irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the ec. My point about the IME is that on the new fangled mobile devices, an English reader would stroke an "A" or an exclamation mark and expect to get the "obvious" English article. I don't myself, but I am just guessing, when people use Wikipedia on mobile devices, that is why I suggested it does perhaps hinder that. For example I could see IJ (digraph) being "understood" by the device differently in Dutch or English. Si Trew (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "English speakers", I deliberately said "English readers". I possibly should have emphasised that, my fault. Si Trew (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My opening statement explicitly referred to the exclamation mark so I'm not sure how anyone would think I was talking about the A. As for whether it was the Unicode that broke the Twinkle script, I have no way of knowing. But it should be self-evident that the failure of the Twinkle script in raising the RfD was not the reason for raising the RfD.
The claim that the redirect is getting 'human hits' seems quite odd, and it is considerably likely that the only such hits it's gotten are by its creator and during investigation of its presence leading up to and during this discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I have no idea why I led myself down the garden path about "A", as you did say clearly it was about the exclamation point; I think I was trying to extend it to say that homographs generally may not be helpful, IMO. Si Trew (talk) 09:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not possible, with the tools currently available to people other than Foundation staff, to determine whether a hit is from a human or a bot. However, experience of looking at the hits redirects typically get as led to RfD regulars using a rule of thumb that bots are responsible for at most 3-4 hits each month when there is no activity on the redirect. In this case the redirect was created in June, and redirects always get at least a few more hits in the first 2-3 days than is typical in the long term. The redirect was nominated here in the second week of November, and while listings here do generate more hits than normal we counter this by linking to the stats from the previous month. Between July and October we therefore have accurate data for this redirect, and it's consistently getting 8-11 hits, which as noted is greater than can be attributed solely to bots. So the probability is that this is getting human views, and as the redirect is doing no harm this means the evidence is in favour of keeping the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's getting hits because it exists, but not because it is necessary. At best, it's status as a homograph is a mild curiosity, which may itself generate traffic for the redirect as users unaware of the existence of the visually similar character stumble upon the redirect and wonder how it exists in parallel to the real article. It serves no practical purpose, and the chance that someone would deliberately search for it other than for novelty purposes is approximately zero.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What matters is whether people use it, not why they use it. Not all redirects that exist get traffic NET Phase 2 for example has had no visits since the day of creation. Additionally "not necessary" is not a reason to delete a redirect, we delete them if they are harmful but this is not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. WP:REDIRECT states under When to delete: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name ... Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created." That is precisely the case here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this was unused I'd agree deletion would be appropriate but we do not delete something as implausible when there is evidence (i.e. it is used) that it is not implausible. It's also worth noting this is not a synonym or a misnomer, so that part of your quote is irrelevant. It's a typographical variant, that while looking obscure and implausible at first sight is in reality not. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Back in actual reality, it remains both obscure and implausible. But I tire of your argument from verbosity. For all practical purposes, and based on the intent of what is stated at WP:DIRECT, the homograph in question is perfectly analogous to a "synonym", and using a retroflex click instead of an exclamation mark is absolutely a "misnomer".--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So the evidence of it not being implausible is fake then? The bottom line is that this is used and harmless, so there is no possible benefit to deletion, and so we should not delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation of the very small number of unassessable hits is not evidence for practicality of the redirect.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting double-digit numbers of hits each month, based on my experience of years worth of looking at traffic figures for redirects it seems almost certain that this includes human uses (some redirects get less than 5 hits/month), and there is no evidence to the contrary. Either I'm right or I'm wrong; and this either gets kept or deleted, giving four scenarios: (1) there are human uses and the redirect is kept: people find the content they are looking for, they and the encyclopaedia benefit. (2) there are human uses and the redirect is deleted: People are unable to find what they want, despite Wikipedia having that content, so Wikipedia has failed them and they have to spend more time and effort; Wikipedia loses any improvements to the content (or content linked from it) they would have made; the contributor of the redirect is not encouraged to spend more time here. (3) there are no human uses and the redirect is kept: nothing happens, nobody loses. (4) there are no human uses and the redirect is deleted: nobody benefits; the contributor of the redirect is not encouraged to spend more time here. Whether you like the redirect or not, whether you think it is "practical" or not, there is no benefit in deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your second scenario is entirely implausible. The article has gotten along just fine for several years without any need for an obscure redirect. No one—not even its creator—has indicated here that they have personally found the redirect useful.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What evidence are you basing that assertion of implausibility on? The encyclopaedia got on just fine for several years without an article on B. R. Vijayalakshmi but the encyclopaedia is better now that it does exist, the same is true of this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison of a valid article with an implausible redirect is ridiculous and merits no further response.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I ask again what evidence you are using to determine that this redirect is implausible? Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I claim it is ambiguous and that is why it is harmful: the essay at WP:CRYPTIC is the "argument for deletion", that we don't all have to be "in the know" to find something; WP:FORRED would be another. I don't think we sit on policy guidelines or essays but what makes sense. My claim on this one I think will fail but there's no doubt other editors have presented good reasons for deletion; and another has presented the opposite case. Si Trew (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how this is (or indeed can be) ambiguous, and don't see anything in your comments about it (most of it seems to be irrelevant comment about non-Latin "A" characters). FORRED is about redirects from foreign languages, this is not in a foreign language and so doesn't have any relevance here. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe there's another target readers may be looking for, by all means suggest it. The essay at cryptic says nothing relevant to this case, nor does FORRED. Linking to irrelevant essays is not a rationale for deletion anymore than asserting you like tapioca is a rationale for deletion. Otherwise, factually wrong assertions and wikilinks to unrelated pages do not a rationale for deletion make. WilyD 16:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having checked and done my homework, I believe there are several good possible articles, let alone redirects. I think this should be deleted to encourage the creation of the article. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? What article should be at this title? Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awake (disambiguation) would seem the obvious target. Not an article, admittedly. If we're having so much discssion about an exclamation mark (and we are), I claim it is genuinely ambiguous. One of them listed at the DAB page has a question mark. But you know how the exclamation mark has become kinda a retro thing in musicals that we must have an exclamation mark and it has become kinda an in-joke: "Wagner! The Musical! ("You've slept through the ring cycle, now learn about his hats...") So I think this is pushing it a bit far, frankly. Si Trew (talk) 09:53, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is an argument for retargeting this to Awake (disambiguation), not one for deletion. However given that Awake! exists, I still think that is the best target. Thryduulf (talk)

Keep I don't see how this would hurt the project. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDIRECT: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name ... Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created." Not only is it entirely in line with the guidelines for deleting redirects, but if it were noticed earlier, it would have been a candidate for speedy deletion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But that is the benefit of hindsight. I've argued, unsuccessfully, that exactly that guideline "recently created" should be dropped from that sentence; but it stands and I abide by it. Si Trew (talk) 09:38, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That probably sounded harsher than I meant. The way to end a stupid law is not to ignore it but to enforce it. I lost, a better editor won. To be clear: The other editor has not shoved me to say so. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on... your own arbitrary distinction? Where is your evidence that anyone has found—or would find—the redirect useful?--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most, if not all, of the hits in November prior to the RfD were me. There's no indication that the twenty or so earlier hits (in the last 90 days[25]) were by twenty distinct individuals. Based on the editing history of the redirect's creator, it seems more likely that editors occasionally stumble upon the redirect while reviewing the creator's past contributions. Some of those editors might then revisit the redirect to try to determine how it's different to the article name. And some of the hits could be by the creator of the redirect to review their novel effort.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that they are not distinct individuals. Even if this is only benefiting one or two people, it is not harming anybody and so deletion would not bring any benefits to anybody. Why does something have to benefit lots of people before it is worthwhile - and where do you draw the line? And why are you so keen on deleting something that is harmless? Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further interest in your tedious special pleading for this implausible redirect. If it stays, it stays. It remains pointless.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2014 (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/2014_November_10&oldid=1141906252"