Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 5
May 7 >

May 6

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 6, 2015.

Homeless Rabbi

[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. Just Chilling (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that "homeless rabbi" is sometimes found in literature on jesus, but seriously, is there anyone on planet earth who 1: hasnt heard of jesus, 2: is curious about the phrase homeless rabbi. its like typing "that dark bubbly drink made in atlanta" cause you dont know what coca cola is. if you dont know who jesus is, you definitely wont have heard of the homeless rabbi. perhaps it should be mentioned in the article on jesus if its a commonly used name for him. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—I've never heard the phrase "Homeless Rabbi" in my life. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it seems to be based on Luke 9:58 where it's said that "but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." Still misleading since Jesus wasn't pertaining to His position as a rabbi. --Lenticel (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ooh, Lenticel, you can't beat the KJV for beautiful language, can you, the New International Version and so on are nowhere near it. But was Jesus a Rabbi? I was never taught that (as a Christian). That would be WP:SURPRISEing to me, Rabbi means literally "teacher" doesn't it, but was he an ordained Rabbi? If not I think this is confusing. Si Trew (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technically he's a rabbi as in a "respected sage/teacher" but not a rabbi as in "teacher ordained by the Jewish priests". Yes KJV is quite beautiful and also public domain so I get to avoid copyright issues :). --Lenticel (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lenticel is right; also, in some translations, the disciples address him as Rabbi. Was ordination as formal a process back then as today? I don't know. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to my search, it seems to be a formal process. There seems to need to have at least three "judges" to confirm that the person is indeed a rabbi. --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reference number 8 at Rabbi addresses this fairly directly, if anyone's interested in learning more. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Surely the KJV is under crown copyright :) I'm pretty neutral on what to do with this, just not sure how useful it really would be. Si Trew (talk) 05:23, 8 May 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.

Category:Songs written by Rolf Haris, Category:Rolf Haris songs

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete per G7, and the look of WP:SNOW anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually need category redirects for misspellings? There maybe a use for article redirects, but what chance somebody is looking for a misspelt category? Richhoncho (talk) 19:43, 6 May 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.

Bryan Henderson

[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, default to delete. The different opinions below can be summarised as:
  1. Keep, because Comprised of#Removal from Wikipedia mentions him.
  2. Delete/retarget, because there is an alternative plausible target, Brian Henderson (dab).
  3. Delete, WP:BLP1E.
There is no clear consensus, and given the presence of an alternative plausible target supported by some participants, and some other participants arguing for deletion for another reason, I'm defaulting to delete. Deryck C. 14:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Henderson is Wikipedia editor User:Giraffedata. Unclear if a redirect should exist. The recent Bryan Henderson AfD had 100% support for deletion and no mention of a redirect. Many people on Wikipedia are mentioned in articles with no wikilinks, we don't usually create redirects for someone who is merely named in an article, though it does happen. "What Links Here" shows 9 unrelated articles of other Bryan Hendersons. GreenC 13:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete It is not common and makes little sense to me to create redirects for arbitrary persons being mentioned in somewhere in WP articles. Redirects should be used in the case of widespread alternatives names to link to the entry under which the topic is saved. Or they serve as temporary redirects for topics that are principally notable but do not have their own entries yet.--Kmhkmh (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we have reliably-sourced content on Henderson in that article, the redirect is therefore appropriate. If the content is removed from that article, then we delete the redirect. We can turn this into a dab if we need to differentiate between different Bryan Hendersons. Ivanvector (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, it's self-sourced. Most people do their masturbation in private, but if you want to spill it all over the web, that's up to you, I guess. Si Trew (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to forgive me, I'm not following your argument. It looks very clear to me that Mr. Henderson is the author of none of the nine independent references in that section which discuss and critique (variously positively and negatively) his actions. Did you mean something different by "self-sourced"? Ivanvector (talk) 14:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I forgive you. Doing a itof follow up and I could be totally wrong here all roads lead to Rome, i.e. that not exactly creatged by this user nor by a sockpuppet but it is just not very notable and created not out of self-interest or squatting etc but just by a small group of people who know this person. Now. I may be entirely wrong there but it just seems that way to me, that it is self-interested- I could be entirely wrong because the articlr itdrlf is pretty WP:NEUTRAL and the redirect is quite WP:RNEUTRAL so I am not sure why I have a bee in my bonnet about it, everyt I just have a dodgy feeling on this one. But I am usually wrong. I just can't put my finger on it.
Now this is playing a total winger but in Being for the Benefit of Mr Kite. in Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. we have "The Hendersons will all be there, late of Pablo Fanque's Fair, what a scene." Messrs K and H assure the public their performance will be second to none. And of course, Henry tbe Horse, dances the Waltz. 84.236.25.47 (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2015 (UTC) (That last was me, I forgot to sign in.) Si Trew (talk) 20:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a total winger, even for you, sir. I still don't think I know exactly how it is self-sourced; the references are independent, and being added by editors who might know this person is maybe a WP:COI issue but I don't see any foul play here - the mention is not overtly promotional or anything like that. It could very well be that we've reached a point where notability is influenced by the number of Wikipedians who actually write things in real life, but unless we can establish that these authors have a link to Mr. Henderson, then independent is independent. This is a lot of argument for a redirect anyway - at the moment, we have a reliably sourced (allegedly) section discussing this person, and it makes sense that the redirect should go there. If this is going to be a content dispute about whether it should be in the article or not, then it should be at Talk:Comprised of, and the fate of this redirect should follow from that. Ivanvector (talk) 01:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • n.b. I've added a {{redirect}} hatnote at the target article for the dab Brian Henderson. Retargeting there as an {{R from alternative spelling}} seems preferable to deletion. --BDD (talk) 17:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only notable thing about Bryan Henderson is that he (and his brother) have some bugbears about grammar. Well, so do I, but we don't have an article for Simon Trew saying that he can't stand people saying "different than" instead of "different from", and even H. W. Fowler in 1912 said that was a lost cause. (If Simon Trew existed, it should be for the military historian from Royal Military Academy Sandhurst, who I think is notable; I made a draft for him some time ago but didn't get very far. Spoke to his secretary once, about this time of the morning, I said hello I am Simon Trew and she said oh that's odd cos he just went out with a cup of tea.) Si Trew (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 and additionally WP:BLP1E - the same reason for the original AfD here. As it's a "G" CSD criteria, it applies to any page anywhere, including redirects. If I had thought a redirect was appropriate, I would have !voted that way at the previous AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:43, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jeez, didn't we just make you an admin? To quote G4 A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. - the page is 0% identical. They literally only share the title, which G4 explicitly notes is irrelevant. WilyD 11:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm sympathetic to keeping the redirect (it is useful as long as the name remains in the comprised of article), I think the significance of this wide coverage is less Henderson and more of the act. I think Henderson's name should be removed from the article and the references dispersed into the article (rather than segregated to its own section). This would make the redirect no longer useful and our redirect discussion moot. czar ⨹ 01:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on the one hand, I'm not really convinced it should be discussed at the Comprised of article. On the other hand, so long as he is discussed there, the redirect is clearly called for . So, I guess, Keep, per BLP1E, so long as he's discussed at Comprised of - e.g., to discourage creation, send the reader to what they're looking for, per WP:BLP1E: In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. WilyD 11:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I concur with those who who question the propriety of the targeted section. It strikes me as wiki omphaloskepsis. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Brian Henderson as {{R from alternative spelling}}. Weak delete as a second choice. I don't think BLP1E is especially relevant here, because "comprised of" is not an event. We're supposed to think of the long run here. No disrespect to Bryan Henderson the editor, but I hope Wikipedia continues to thrive long after he's dead and gone. --BDD (talk) 13:49, 13 May 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.

The Ice Age Movies

[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. WP:RELIST says "in general, debates should not be relisted more than twice" and I'm not seeing a good reason for the third relisting. Therefore, it should default to no consensus. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  04:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ice age (disambiguation) lists two films that aren't a part of this particular franchise. Thus, these aren't all of the movies with Ice Age in the title, even if they are the most notable. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:24, 5 April 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) 18:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually as you see we don't have I or IV (IV being the Latin for @Ivanvector:). Ice Age (film) exists as a DAB so maybe we should retarget it there, Si Trew (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ice Age (film) is itself a redirect to Ice age (disambiguation)#Film. Ivanvector (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't noticed that. I suppose a bot would "correct" it if we took it that way. I'll mark it as {{R to section}} if that is not already done, just as a bit of gnoming and no prejudice to this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was already marked and I changed mine above since I don't see it in any way prejudices the discussion, struck Ice age (film) and going with Ice Age (disambiguation)#Film. Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm Ice age (film) is red (Ice Age (film) being the R), but Ice Age (disambiguation) redirects to Ice age (disambiguation) with lowercase A, and that redirect is already marked as {{R from alternative capitalization}}. Should we create the film one with the alt caps as an {{R from alternative capitalization}}? I don't see the point right now to do that, but it kinda balances things up. Si Trew (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think no, unless there are a number of notable documentaries about ice ages, rather than children's movies called "Ice Age". Ivanvector (talk) 18:17, 18 April 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, Deryck C. 10:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. View stats during the last 90 days is negligible; any rise in the view stat is caused by this RfD. IMHO, this isn't how Wikipedia links the titles and hence this isn't how people are used to find information on Wikipedia. It is an aberration. Fleet Command (talk) 13:53, 28 April 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, Deryck C. 09:20, 6 May 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.

Cromulent

[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 withdrawn. We the intelligent lot of cartoon addicts thank Si, whose noble spirit embiggens RfD. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading. @Pablo X: used this word, I think wrongly, in the discussion below for WP:RFD#Vigorexia, but this is a [[WP:SURPRISE] (it just means "fine, acceptable"). In the meantime, without prejudice, I'll mark it as {{R to section}}, which it is. Si Trew (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it is WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:NOTDIC. Since dictionaries list it in a different sense, if you bothered to check, then you would find it does not mean what Cohen thinks it means. That is why it is misleading. Certainly Pablo, I imagine a native Spanish speaker, used it in another sense, and I imagine that was a false friend but hard for me to guess what he wanted. Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have plenty of articles about notable words and phrases. Cromulent is a notable word because it was coined by a Simpsons episode. Its later appearances in dictionaries stem from its appearance on The Simpsons. All the relevant encyclopedic information can be found at "Lisa the Iconoclast", with some more at David X. Cohen, so Keep. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see your reasoning, but disagree. This is a nonce word used in one episode of one (undoubtedly popular) series, that does not make it WP:RS. While redirects do not have to be RS, and should direct people where they want to go (I agree with all that), to kinda give the stamp of approval in this way, unwittingly, is not acceptable. Can you give examples of other nonce words for which we have articles or redirects? That is not being WP:POINTY, just usually they are deleted, and I can't think of any myself (otherwise I would come round to your point of view). It still is not established that Cohen actually coined the phrase. There is a huge team of writers of which Cohen is the head writer. Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wily, I have suggested a reason for deleting: misleading. Don't say I haven't. WP:RFD#D5 nonsense, then. It's also at the simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Made-up_words so to attribute it to Cohen is probably false, anyway, since there are stacks of writers on that show, anyway, we are not here to do etymology. This is not a proper word in any reliable dictionary, and we require WP:RS here, this is absolute nonsense. Or inin the alternate we add, eleventeen and thirty-twelve just because they are Imaginary numbers used in a Calvin and Hobbes cartoon. Si Trew (talk) 09:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a reason if it were in any way misleading, but since it's not, it isn't. So no, you haven't suggested a reason for deletion. WilyD 11:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have, in fact, I suggested two: WP:SURPRISE and WP:RFD#D5. Now, you can legitimately say "I disagree with those reasons", as others have below, but to dismissively say "no reason has been suggested" is patently false, very patronising, and very annoying. I have asked you many months ago to stop trotting out that phrase, "no reason has been suggested" by which you mean "I disagree". Si Trew (talk) 04:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to two wholly unrelated policies/guidelines/whatever is not "presenting a reason", it's including a non-sequitur statement. For you to claim you've presented a reason is blatantly untrue, and to use this falsehood to attack me is uncalled for. If you don't want your RfD nominations to be described as not presenting a reason for deletion, stop making RfD nominations in which you don't present a reason for deletion. That no reason has been presented for deletion is relevant to the discussion - if a reason for deletion had been suggested it could be refuted, or weighed against the reasons to keep, or whatever. That no reason has been presented is necessary to point out to explain why the reason for deletion - which one would normally expect to be present in an XfD nomination - is not addressed. I don't disagree with your stated reason for seeking deletion, because you haven't stated a reason for seeking deletion. If you don't want to be called out on that in the future, explain your reason for seeking deletion as part of your nomination statement. Or, heck, when someone points out that you haven't given one. It's your own petard, and I'm not the one hoisting, so it's unjust to blame me. WilyD 09:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It's perfectly cromulent. WP:NEO discourages articles about neologisms. Essentially, a neologism can either be a word I just make up or any new word, which may have widespread usage. "Blog" is a neologism, really. "Cromulent" has entered the English language and is appropriately redirecting to the work that introduced it. --BDD (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Embiggened keep - yes, it's a neologism, but an example of one which is notable for its well-known use in a highly notable work, and for being a demonstration of the ongoing evolution of the English language. Addressing Si's points: the redirect is neither misleading nor surprising - someone typing this is very likely to be looking for its meaning or usage, and the redirect points to that content; I'm not sure what other information could be sought by typing this. Ivanvector (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cromulent keep We should not promisculfate on the matter here - the word is famous as a Simpsons in-joke. This is not a cragmanifate issue; it should be treated with embormascence. (All jokes aside, it's notable as a Simpsons gag, one of the more famous ones.) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) >
Hmm, I still am not sure on this. We have Recurring in-jokes in Private Eye, for example, but I don't think we have Recurring in-jokes in The Simpsons, or anything similar, where it would be best described. Si Trew (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: I trampled over yours by accident. I think I corrected it, I trampled over your signature because my left hand Ctrl key seems to play up so I did copy paste of the link and trampled over your sig. So please accept my apology if I didn't restore it quite right, purely accidental, not intentional. Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

z (Follow my trail) 18:18, 6 May 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.

Lizards and litter

[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. Just Chilling (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I literally have no idea what this means. Tavix | Talk  04:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds more fun than Snakes and ladders, though. Si Trew (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does. But have you played live-action snakes and ladders? I did at Nuit Blanche in Toronto last year, though there were no lizards present, it being October in Canada. Ivanvector (talk) 01:41, 10 May 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.

Lyrics to God Bless 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. The lyrics have been removed at the target page as a copyvio anyway. --BDD (talk) 13:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The apostrophe on the end makes it an implausible search term. I don't think it's worth keeping because we don't have Lyrics to God Bless America, for example. Tavix | Talk  04:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. It gets hits above noise level (about one every two days, on average, which is above bot noise level). It is implausible but it must be linked from somewhere, it doesn't turn up on my search dropdown (I think @Tavix: is right, the search tool eliminates redirects, I don't think it's clever that it is on similarity, I think it just eliminates all redirects, since why would one want to go via a redirect? Redirect and search are complementary.) Si Trew (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we're not a lyrics database. Ivanvector (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC) Expanding: we should delete this, because even if there were lyrics to the song at the target, we would remove them because we're not a lyrics database, and because lyrics are most often not public domain, so there is no point in keeping this redirect to content that probably can't exist. Ivanvector (talk) 14:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably the lyrics were there when this redirect was created, but the section is now blanked as a potential copyvio. That will probably be resolved before this discussion, and will at least decide whether the lyrics are something we provide. There's still the typo, though. --BDD (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird, who owns the copyright on this song? The estate of Irving Berlin? It surprised me, I admit, that it was written by him (I learned something) because it is about as un-Berlinlike a tune one could imagine. Si Trew (talk) 04:47, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see 1/2 a hit a day as being useful. And given that it has a random ' at the end, while ' is typically next to the enter key and therefore a common mistype, I think we could make the same argument for adding a ' redir for every page. ― Padenton|✉   18:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, creation is not the inverse of deletion. This exists, so we have to deal with it somehow: the ones you're suggesting are purely hypothetical, and we don't have to deal with them. I've struck my weak keep anyway, it was very weak. Si Trew (talk) 04:47, 7 May 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.

Skip Clueless

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#G10 attack page. JohnCD (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this redirect should be deleted due to WP:BLP concerns. It isn't mentioned in his article and can be considered offensive. Tavix | Talk  00:38, 6 May 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.

Wikipedia:FASCIST

[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. I wish I had thought to notify the Fascism task force about this discussion, but I'll leave them a note anyway. I think they're free to appropriate this if they want. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is another redirect that falls in line with discussion we just had at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 28#Wikipedia:Hitler (and you can follow that rabbit hole back to the original discussion). It was suggested there that this shortcut should have been deleted along with WP:HITLER because it is unnecessarily offensive and I would agree with that sentiment. Tavix | Talk  00:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Pinging those who participated in the previous discussion: FleetCommand, Ivanvector, Padenton, Lenticel, Dwpaul, Magog the Ogre, Codename Lisa, Tim@, and AlanM1. Tavix | Talk  00:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of that. We keep plenty of links that would be, to some, offensive, although I have argued against some that I have found needlessly offensive, and sometimes win, sometimes lose. No question about WP:NOTCENSORED, this is a question of whether it is useful, which is a different matter. I argue that it is harmful because it does not direct people to where they are likely to want to go; others have different opinions, and that is how we achieve WP:CONSENSUS. Cunt for example I was expecting to be a redirect but actually has its own article, and that is fine: it is not a question of censorship. It's a question of how useful (or harmful) it is. I claim it is harmful, others prohably would disagree. Si Trew (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is virtually unlinked. (There are four inbound links caused by this RfD!) And given its target and its meaning, it should share the same fate as WP:HITLER and WP:Hitler. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. There's a difference between a fascist and a vandal, anyway, and we have no need to encourage the spread of "fascist" to mean "anyone I don't like". Si Trew (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics/Fascism per Lenticel and for consistency with WP:FASCISM. I think the project's inactivity is irrelevant for there to be redirects pointing there, particularly since the alternative is deletion (there seem to be no better targets); with respect to Magog, Godwin's Law doesn't actually discuss fascism, and that would make this a cross-namespace redirect. If by retargeting we break conversations where this has been used offensively, I'm absolutely ok with those conversations being broken. I want to also point out that this discussion is not the same as the Hitler discussion. I don't believe this has potential for anywhere near the level of offense as do casual comparisons to the Holocaust. Ivanvector (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I must admit I am leaning towards that, I know WP:NOTCENSORED and totally agree with it, so that's not at issue, but that whether it is helpful. WP:SOCIALIST, WP:COMMUNIST etc. don't exist. While a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, since this is in WP space not article space, I think we have a little more freedom to delete it than we would in article space. Si Trew (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per previous arguments. What's with the "Ogre"s wanting to turn a factual encyclopedia into a bunch of uninformative derogatory redirects? Fun should only be had in the talk pages not the articles/redirects. --Tim (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only purpose seems to be to accuse editors who are seen to be violating the target page's point of being fascists. This is name calling. Elassint Hi 04:31, 12 May 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.

Aollf Hitler

[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) 13:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RTYPO--" if a single redirect contains multiple typos, it may be considered an unlikely search term and deleted." I believe this to be a an unlikely search term because I have failed to find a single instance of this being used in the "wild." A search for "Aollf Hitler -Wikipedia" gives me less than 200 Google hits, most of which are "dictionaries" populated from Wikipedia and gibberish. Tavix | Talk  00:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, if you search for "Aolf Hitler" (just the one misspelling, the missing D) the search engine asks "Did you mean Aollf Hitler i.e. this redirect (and nothing else). I guess that's where those few extra hits come from. Delete to give the search engine a chance. Si Trew (talk) 06:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As an average it's well below noise level, but the odd thing is on several days there are two hits. Now, could be two different bots, but they usually don't tread on each others' feet like that (and also there would be more of a pattern to it so I think those extras are people genuinely searching and mistyping: but this still isn't helpful to them because the only result they get is the redirect: were the redirect to be deleted, presumably the search engine might find Herr H. instead. Si Trew (talk) 04:59, 7 May 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_May_6&oldid=1136083077"