Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 25, 2015.

Akranis[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 Akranes. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does not make sense. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert page to a soft redirect to Wikt:akranis (in other words, {{Wiktionary redirect|akranis}}.) I'm not seeing any encyclopedic information for this term per search engines, but the Wiktionary entry does exist. Steel1943 (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My alternate opinion to converting to a Wiktionary redirect is Delete. This spelling has no strong connection I can find (on search engines) with the subject in Akranes, and thus the redirect should probably be removed altogether. Steel1943 (talk) 07:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Akranes as a likely misspelling. A redirect to wiktionary is not really helpful in this case. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 16:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete with WP:NPA in mind. Looking at creator's history, it seems the purpose of this was to call User:Akranis a nerd. Tipped off by his last edit before this one to Amathev (now to Art) to Japanophile, which was started by User:Chrodyn redirecting to Homosexuality and presumably with similar connotations to User:Amathev (i.e. calling them gay). 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 05:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Oiyarbepsy; Wiktionary is highly inappropriate, since it is a non-English word that Wiktionary is defining. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I just did a Google search for "Akranis" and couldn't find any connection to Akranes. I feel like if it's a plausible misspelling, then someone has had to have used it, but I couldn't find any. I'm willing to change my vote if someone finds an example of someone using Akranis to mean Akranes. Otherwise, I'm falling more in line with Hisashiyarouin's rationale. Tavix |  Talk  18:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, then. Gsearching for "Akranes, Iceland" gave me these (amongst other bad matches):
  • "Names in the Game". apnewsarchive.com. Associated Press. 22 August 1993. Retrieved 27 February 2015. Despite free admission for women, only about 4,000 people attended a European Champion's Cup match between Albanian champion Partizani and Akranis of Iceland.
  • "e-freak" (22 July 2007). "Iceland". mapcore.org. Retrieved 27 February 2015. Keflavik -> Reykjavik -> Hof -> Blue Lagoon/Continental Drift -> Akranis -> Keflavik (and many stations between but's that the endkeys of the parts we made through)
We do also have Akrani → Dhadgaon, but as a place name it can't really be made plural (and hatnoting the two is probably unnecesary). Akrane is red, so there is no confusion there. Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 27 February 2015 (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.

Table-lookup synthesis[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 coverted to an article. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonmatching title pointing to a disambiguation page. We don't do this. If Table-lookup synthesis has a meaning, it should point to that meaning; if it is ambiguous, it should be a disambiguation page, not point to a different page with a markedly different title. bd2412 T 21:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

 Comment:: @BD2412: I'm glad if you withdrew this deletion request, because this redirection will be later converted to a proper article (based on Curtis Roads 1996, p. 87), as written on Talk:Wavetable. I'm sorry for my slow hands. I should write about it also on the Talk:Table-lookup synthesis page. best, --Clusternote (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deletion request, but a discussion request. If this is to be converted, do it now, to address the many incoming links. bd2412 T 00:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry for my confusion. Please wait for preparation of new article. By the way, can I replace the content field on the page from "#REDIRECT Wavetable" to new article ? --Clusternote (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can replace the whole thing - once it is no longer a redirect, this discussion is moot. bd2412 T 01:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your kindly advice ! I've converted the page to proper article. --Clusternote (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - any admin watching this page, you can close this discussion as resolved. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
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.

Wololo[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case you've never played it, the priests in Age of Empires do a chant that sounds like "Wololo" when they attempt to convert enemy units. But it probably doesn't make for a good redirect, because that's not mentioned at the target article, and it probably never will be. BDD (talk) 20:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It's just a meme that has no notability outside the game. It's also the term no in Kalenjin languages. Damn it. I wanted to vote "Convert to something" :(. --Lenticel (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Swahili gospel singer Rose Mhando has a song by this name, according to Google, but none of her work is mentioned at the stub we have on her. I don't know if it is related. Delete to avoid confusion and/or to encourage article creation. Ivanvector (talk) 16:25, 2 March 2015 (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.

Star Trek Text-Based Role Playing Games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 9#Star Trek Text-Based Role Playing Games

Israel and the Palestinian territories[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) 15:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete the redirect, because it's only purpose is political (we can also direct it to Land of Israel as much as to Palestine, and it creates needless edit-warring; it is like making a Russia and Ukraine redirect and point it to Russia) GreyShark (dibra) 17:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D2, "may cause confusion". That being said, off the top of my head, I seem to remember that "Israel and the Palestinian territories" was exactly how British Telecom ( [sic]) used to list it for the International Direct Dialling code around 1980, since presumably, telecommunications cables are no respecters of political borders (and I have a good reason to remember that has nothing to do with either Israel or Palestine). But barring me obtaining about a 1980 copy of the book of STD codes supplied by Post Office Telephones, I'd have a hard job verifying this feat of memory. And even if I did, the term was obviously politically loaded – or an attempt to make it not so – even then. Si Trew (talk) 23:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually I think it was "Israel and the Occupied Territories", which we don't have. Neither should we have this. Possibly WP:RFD#D8 "offensive", but it's not actually used in article space at all, and not much outside it. Si Trew (talk) 23:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. There are two subjects and you can't redirect to both so it's better to just delete. Tavix |  Talk  01:36, 27 February 2015 (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.

Money and fame[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 Crazy World (Scorpions album). (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone searching "Money and fame" would be disappointed when they only find Money. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as WP:XY. I think "Fame and Money" is too much of a stretch. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that works for me. --BDD (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2015 (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.

Foreign relations of South America[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. It looks like many of these are linked from navboxes, suggesting the appetite for articles at these titles. --BDD (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this redirect from the "foreign relations of the Americas" template, and was pretty surprised when there wasn't actually an article on the topic. It should probably be deleted per WP:REDLINK unless there's a better suited target? Tavix |  Talk  01:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment; I've tagged it as an {{R with possibilities}}. --Mr. Guye (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. I wouldn't think of continents as having foreign relations—they don't, at least in the sense that countries do. But I suppose you could discuss international relations in the context of a continent. There's an equivalent redirect for Asia, which I hope you won't mind my adding to this nomination. There's no similar redirect for North America, Africa, Asia, or Oceania. Foreign relations of Europe redirects to Foreign relations of the European Union, which is probably cromulent. I'll also inform WikiProject International relations. --BDD (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 19:12, 25 February 2015 (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.

Diskurso[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. The list of art magazines only includes notable publications. Until this one can be demonstrated to be notable, it doesn't belong there. --BDD (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection of Periodical literature has rightly been deleted as being nonreliably sourced fluff. As such this redirect should be deleted as well. Saddhiyama (talk) 17:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I was thinking vaguely that the phrase "language of discourse" (universe of discourse) may make this something other than a WP:DICDEF. Si Trew (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep? - Please refer me to the ruling on "self-sourcing items" like this. It is on the Internet and has something to contribute to the idea of the "periodical". Must there first be an accolade of this contribution from a third party, preferably a mainstream journalism outlet? I was wondering, if a video threatening the bombing of the city of Barcelona is to appear on a terrorist group's website, would that video qualify as a valid "self-sourced material" for the creation of a section in the article "Bomb threats", or must a third party—preferably someone from the Washington Post perhaps—first report on it? --Bagoto (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they must: we need reliable, secondary sources, one of the three pillars of Wikipedia. Si Trew (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Simon. --Bagoto (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagoto: My pleasure. Redirects do not have to be reliably sourced, but since the article no longer has any content which would make this redirect make sense, either we have to send it somewhere else or delete it. I think it is unlikely that it goes where I suggested because it's not mentioned at that target. Si Trew (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2015 (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.

Channel 93[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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to KHON-TV, a VHF TV station, which is on digital channel 8, virtual subchannels 2.1 and 2.2; there is no evidence of "93" being anything other than a branding for marketing purposes (which the article at KHON-TV#Hawaii's CW lists as obsolete) or a digital cable converter position on one system. K7L (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, refining to section KHON-TV#Hawaii's CW and mark as {{R from old name}}. We do have Category:Channel 93 TV stations in the United States and Category:Channel 93 branded TV stations in the United States, which I found (among others) high on the list of my Special:Search for "Channel 93", so it might be better off as a redlink so that others could do likewise without undue contortion. Si Trew (talk) 21:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The use of categories to sort North American television stations by real or virtual channel numbering is deprecated, with multiple deletion votes either currently in progress or already closed as "delete and listify". The category is therefore not a rationale to keep this particular redirect. We normally classify stations by the frequency and subchannel numbering actually going out as an over-the-air signal (as the cable slots may differ on every cable system, plus fibre, plus dish...) and really don't care that one particular CATV operator on one digital box put this on 93 if it's VHF 8 (subchannel 2.2) it's not 93 OTA. K7L (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But if someone came across "Channel 93" in an old book or whatnot, what would they want to find? One of those lists or categories (I presumed there was some rationale for having "TV stations" and "branded TV stations" as separate cats, but didn't look into their talk pages beyond noting they existed, when I searched). They probably wouldn't expect to jump to KHON-TV unless they happened to live in Hawaii. So that's a good argument for deletion to let the search engine do it. In the UK where I have lived most of my life, TV stations were never referred to by their frequency, always just by ident, for the reasons you state (different frequencies in different locations). Radio stations similarly, although some do use their frequency or range of frequencies in their station ident (BBC Radio 4 for example calls longhand as "On 92 to 95 FM, 198 Longwave, on digital radio, and online, this is BBC Radio 4"). Si Trew (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although just now (listening via the Internet) it just called "This is BBC Radio 4", just before the pips at 22.00 GMT. Si Trew (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with using cable or subscription TV channel numbering for anything is that cable operators like to deliberately move things to the wrong channel. As one example, a North American VHF TV station usually wouldn't be on its over-the-air channel on cable in its own home town for technical reasons: an issue known as ingress where a poorly-shielded old telly would pick up over-the-air signal itself. That direct signal would arrive before the cable signal as multipath ghosting; in the days of analogue TV, one could see two superimposed images. Go to some other cable system an hour down the road and the station would be back on its original OTA frequency. The over-the-air channel might be useful for a purely-local station, but a cable channel on one system? No. K7L (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The subchannel was at one time publicly identified as channel 93. This should be addressed when the categories are listified. --Chaswmsday (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2015 (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.

Zero (Marvel Comics)[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 Zero (comics). Not a perfect nor a permanent solution to what is an agreed mess but undoubtedly an improvement ("a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step", Laozi) and the best fit with the comments. This is without prejudice to converting the target to a dab and/or the fuller restructuring proposed by jc37 that can be carried out by editorial action outwith this RFD. I have also adjusted the hatnote as suggested in this discussion. Just Chilling (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A result of my WP:RM, considering the other Zero in comics was also a Marvel Comics character. However, this creates a possibly ambiguous redirect, as the old page now refers to Kenji Uedo exclusively. Perhaps disambiguate? J u n k c o p s (want to talk?|my log) 19:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the anthology comic, see Zero Zero (comics). For Kenji Uedo, the Marvel Comics mutant, see Kenji Uedo.
I'd rewrite that as:
For the anthology of comics, see Zero Zero (comics). For the Marvel Comics mutant "Zero", see Kenji Uedo.
Si Trew (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, it is a mess. But we have to start somewhere. Zero (comics) would maybe seem reasonable as a simple retarget, or DAB? Maybe I draft a DAB... Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bugger, Zero (comics) is an article where call me Mr Picky but I would expect that to be a DAB. It is a mess. Si Trew (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, per WP:NCC, the way this should work is:
    Zero (comics) needs to be a dab page for all the pages related to comics which are named zero. This would include a Beetle Bailey character, comic books numbered zero, and Zero Hour (comics), among other things.
    Zero (Marvel Comics) should be an overview page (See Robin (comics) for an example.) for every marvel comics character named Zero. Including Agent Zero. I would suggest moving the android article there, and building upon it (to maintain page history).
    So, in other words, move Zero (comics) to Zero (Marvel Comics), and turn it into an overview page; turning Zero (comics) into a dab page.
    Once these moves/merges are done, it should be easy to identify the redirect targets. If you would like help with the moves/merges, please let me know. - jc37 19:25, 2 April 2015 (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.

Anti-whistleblower laws[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, with "No reason why a topic this broad should redirect to a much narrower topic." carrying the most weight, and per WP:REDIRECT - no prejudice against turning these redlinks into articles. - jc37 21:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – A discussion about the target article (Ag-gag) is underway. The discussion is leaning towards making "Anti-whistleblower legislation" (or another similar name) the target. See Talk:Ag-gag#RFC_regarding_article_title. Rather than setting the stage for creator's desired result, I think the discussion should conclude, and then needed redirects can be created. – S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC) – S. Rich (talk) 14:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - since articles can be moved over redirects pointing to them, it makes complete sense to create a redirect ahead of a proposed move for a legitimate alternate term, without regard to how the discussion concludes. This is common practice. There are no reasons, and none were given, why it might be preferable to wait for the discussion to conclude. Nominator and I have a history of difficulty in the past, and I had been told he had chosen to abide by a voluntary interaction ban. EllenCT (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply – the RFC has this title linked in the discussion, only it shows up as a blue link. Deleting this redirect will allow editors to clearly see that the new titles being discussed are not yet created. The blue links improperly invite them to click into the very article being discussed. – S. Rich (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Parallel discussion for "Anti-whistleblower legislation"
  • Delete – A discussion about the target article (Ag-gag) is underway. The discussion is leaning towards making "Anti-whistleblower legislation" (or another similar name) the target. See Talk:Ag-gag#RFC_regarding_article_title. Rather than setting the stage for creator's desired result, I think the discussion should conclude, and then needed redirects can be created. – S. Rich (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since articles can be moved over redirects pointing to them, it makes complete sense to create a redirect ahead of a proposed move for a legitimate alternate term, without regard to how the discussion concludes. This is common practice. There are no reasons, and none were given, why it might be preferable to wait for the discussion to conclude. Nominator and I have a history of difficulty in the past, and I had been told he had chosen to abide by a voluntary interaction ban. The nominator's speedy deletion request under CSD G6 ("non-controversial") was completely inappropriate. EllenCT (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply – the RFC has this title linked in the discussion, only it shows up as a blue link. Deleting this redirect will allow editors to clearly see that the new titles being discussed are not yet created. The blue links improperly invite them to click into the very article being discussed. – S. Rich (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reason why a topic this broad should redirect to a much narrower topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – the fact that this re-direct exists was mentioned in the RfC discussion about renaming Ag-gag. See [1]. – S. Rich (talk) 16:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DABify' this as an R to the one above. Siamese twins, should be combined listing. Si Trew (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I'm combining two very similar nominations with very similar discussions here. If someone could draft what a disambiguation page would look like here, that could be very helpful. And which title would be preferred for that page?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for BDD about history of this request: There has been a RfC underway at Talk:Ag-gag#RFC regarding article title about renaming the 'target' article (Ag-gag). While the discussion was underway one of the commenting editors created these 2 redirects.This was a problematic undertaking. First, it served to complicate what may be an eventual outcome – renaming of the article to one of the redirect targets. But these redirects served to confuse the RfC discussion; i.e., one of the RfC commenting editors has mentioned the 2 possible titles, saying they redirect to Ag-gag. These 2 redirects should be deleted so that the RfC can proceed in an orderly fashion. One the RfC is resolved, then needed redirects can be created. (Also, these 2 redirects were deleted under a G6 Speedy CSD and then again created by the same RfC commentator.) – S. Rich (talk) 04:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC) And to answer your last question, the very title of the re-titled article is what the RfC is about. 05:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think this is suitable for disambiguation. WP:DABCONCEPT maybe, but really this is a broader topic than ag-gag. WP:REDLINK it is, then. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 6 March 2015 (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.

Baracketology[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. I can see which way the wind blows. --BDD (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably a neologism about Barack Obama's NCAA bracket choices, this term isn't mentioned in the text of the target article. It's used in a title of two of the references, both of which just support the vague statement that "the concept of bracketology has been applied to areas outside of basketball". "Baracketology" isn't a concept that can be discussed encyclopedically, at least at this point, so the redirect should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oh this one you mean:
No mention of "Baracketology". Si Trew (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This term has gotten much media attention considering the coincidence of Barack Obama's name and the fact that he's a known basketball fan. There should perhaps be a subsection devoted to this term on the bracketology article, but the redirect is a valid one. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like a plausible redirect to me. --Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More sources: FiveThirtyEight has extended analysis of Obama's 2014 picks.[3] SportsOnEarth.com says "President Obama is famous for his NCAA bracket."[4]—Bagumba (talk) 09:08, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no mention of it, nor its target, at FiveThirtyEight:
Nor here:
Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SportsOnEarth is owned by Major League Baseball.[5] Since the subject is about basketball and not baseball, this wouldn't be promotional, non-independent coverage either. This seems reliable. A basketball article by Will Leitch from SportOnEarth has also been quoted by The New York Times.[6].—Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Backwards run argument structure until reels the mind. How about you quote them rather than my doing your homework?
  • If it's not to do with basketball, it is irrelevant.
  • If it is, how about quoting it in full, rather than me doing your homework for you:
I don't know the plural of non sequitur, (hint: I do) but you have two of 'em. Si Trew (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... doing your homework for you": Apologies @Si Trew, but it's not my norm to provide full citations in discussions. You'll find them in my article space work, where I usually provide archived links as well. Being that it's not compulsory, I'll leave it for any gnomes who might find mere external links to be inadequate. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete', with BDD. The only references I see, reliable or no, are to Barack-etology with the hyphen: If it were to redirect anywhere, it should be to there: but tellingly that is red. There is no reference, RS or otherwise, to this being even a neologism (although noun fusion, i.e. welding the nouns and after polishing out the hyphen, is common in English, but it takes time to polish, and this hasn't had the time. Not so much a neologism as probably a one-off phrase, I forget the technical term, nonce word? WP:NOTDICT. Si Trew (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTDICT applies to articles that define words, while Baracketology is a redirect of a subtopic to its larger related topic. Per the guideline WP:R#KEEP, redirects should be kept when they "aid searches on certain terms." Obama's relationship with bracketology is clear from the above sources, and worthy of a blubr or two in the article. It's an article content issue, not a redirect deletion issue, whether the article should specifically mention the neologism; however, there is no harm in it being a plausible search term that redirects to the larger related topic. Obama's relation to bracketology can be discussed in the article without using the neologism. As for the redirect, no criteria in the guideline WP:R#DELETE calls for deletion here.—Bagumba (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then discuss it in the article. Since it is not, you haven't a leg to stand on.
      • criterion is singular. How often do I have to insist on this? Even Wiktionary says so. Si Trew (talk) 02:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And by inventing and thus defining a word no reliable sources, the only leg you have to stand on is that a redirect is not an article. But then it goes as usual as "not mentioned at target" by various of the WP:RFD#DELETE rules but on the whole by consensus, I think, (e.g. WP:RFD#D2 "The redirect may cause confusion"), that a term not mentioned at any target cannot be retargeted thereto and thus should be deleted, to encourage the creation of the article. Old Shakespeare said somewhere, we think tis sport to see the engineer hoist with his own petard. To quote another RfD reg "No reasons have been proposed". Care for any keep reasons to propose? Si Trew (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Set out my stall

Since this is a linguistic argument I bring my linguistic arms to the grounds ready to aim and fire. But it is clearly not exactly a neologism but a nonce word that has been repeated in papers the day after. It is something that lexicographers would note in case it caught on, to give it first reference, but has no place in an encyclopaedia when.

  1. There is no usage of it in its hyphenated or unhyphenated form in any of the refs given
  2. One of the refs is, to my mind, unreliable, and RS insists on multiple' reliable sources: we have none giving the term
  3. Further references given were given with rather good faith that on my part I looked them up. More fool you, I looked them up. The term is not in any of them.
    1. This is quite simply a nonce word that someone once fancied.
    2. Whether we like it or not, WP is treated as somewhat reliable by the outside world (at least we hope so and strive to be so).
      1. Presenting this as the Word of Wikipedia gives it a sanction it does not merit or deserve.
        1. Therefore, it should be deleted, to encourage the creation of the article.
Si Trew (talk) 02:29, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bagumba and expand the target article to mention the President's picks, which is apparently a notable annual event at least in the eyes of sports nerds. A single sentence should suffice. There are multiple reliable sources, such as Bleacher Report, ABC Australia, Chicago Tribune, and this silly Time bit which isn't about basketball but is certainly about the President. Yes, they don't all use the name "Baracketology" or put a hyphen in it, and it is most certainly a neologism, but it's a neologism for an apparently notable thing, thus it is a valid redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 20:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Looks like this is leaning keep. Could someone add a sentence into the target page, or whatever is going to happen? With March Madness approaching, this may become easier to do.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2015 (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.

Calvary at Saint-Thégonnec.[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 Speedied. Peridon (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Left over redirect from moving a newly created page (today) under an incorrect title. No incoming links, and not useful for navigation. I will notify the page's creator to look in the new location. Ivanvector (talk) 16:08, 25 February 2015 (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/2015_February_25&oldid=1142587220"