Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 7, 2016.

Pandagon[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. Deryck C. 12:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pandagon. Marcotte didn't start this blog, and she's not the only notable person associated with it. Ezra Klein co-founded it, for example. If the 2006 judgment is still correct and it's non-notable, we should just let the search engine handle this. BDD (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While Marcotte did indeed go from merely writing on the website to being its manager (or whatever title they use for their main administrator), there are multiple other people strongly associated with it as well. I agree in just flushing the redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that I don't know who manages the website right now, but even if it's been Marcotte for a while the point still stands. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2016 (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.

Stereotypes of White Europeans[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 quorum, delete per nominator intentions as confirmed here. Deryck C. 16:45, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that discusses stereotypes in the target article is a sentence about Linnaeus's description of human races being stereotypical, and even that was about whites generally, not necessarily "White Europeans". BDD (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2016 (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.

[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 all. Deryck C. 12:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FORRED. The Ten Commandments aren't inherently connected to Italian, Esperanto, or French. BDD (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTDIC Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary, original languages are Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, but these are not necessary due to common English terminology -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Lenticel (talk) 01:43, 9 March 2016 (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.

Tokyo Sexwale, Eastern Cape[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 to encourage article creation. Deryck C. 23:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is a locality named after Tokyo Sexwale, but it's not discussed at the target article; it doesn't look like any other localities are. BDD (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kouga Local Municipality doesn't provide any additional information except for the fact that it exists. Would that be a helpful redirect, or is this a case where we redlink it to encourage article creation? -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2016 (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 Focusing Blur[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) sst✈ 05:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

non notable recording Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Typical {{R from album}}, and the recommended way of dealing with non-notable albums per WP:NALBUMS. --BDD (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this redirect, and merge such content as is appropriate from the page history (ATD, PRESERVE, R). There is definitely content worth merging in the page history. James500 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2016 (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.

Solens rötter[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) sst✈ 05:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

non notable recording Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Typical {{R from album}}, and the recommended way of dealing with non-notable albums per WP:NALBUMS. --BDD (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this redirect, and merge such content as is appropriate from the page history (ATD, PRESERVE, R). There is definitely content worth merging in the page history. James500 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2016 (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.

Bluerinse[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 14#Bluerinse

C&EN News[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) sst✈ 05:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

“C&EN News” does not make sense since it would stand for “Chemical & Engineering News News”. Leyo 11:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - right about it not making sense, but it's been here since 2007 and is harmless (isn't ambiguous with some other target, isn't breaking things, etc.). No need to delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 13:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not harmless since people writing [[C&EN News]] into an article will wrongly believe that the abbreviation used is OK due to the blue link. --Leyo 22:16, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:RFD#K5 or at least not harmful. Kinda like PIN number, and I think there is a general linguistic article at recursive abbreviation or some such, but it would be silly to put it there. Gets people to where they want to go, or if not, where do they want to go? Si Trew (talk) 15:21, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "EN" is frequently used as an abbreviation of Engineering (as is ENG), so it makes sense. Many things uses more than one letter for abbreviated forms -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 16:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like "CNN News", but the image at the target article makes clear that the magazine is abbreviated "C&EN". CNN News is just as redundant, though it's about to celebrate its 11th anniversary. --BDD (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a mistake. People make mistakes. This is one of the fundamental reasons why we have redirects in the first place, after all. I'm reminded of Hilary Clinton and Barrack Obama. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    People should be allowed to learn from their mistakes. The redirect has at least to be in Category:Redirects from misspellings. To be clear, I would prefer the method seen at e.g. de:Hilary Clinton but, unfortunately, several projects support messiness. --Leyo 10:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could call it a misnomer, but not a misspelling. {{R unprintworthy}} would do the trick, though, and is probably appropriate. Or {{R from incorrect name}}. --BDD (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2016 (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.

Pseudo-educational television[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) 13:36, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE. This is an article name that vandalism-only and now-indef-blocked editor BLUKCA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created with a single non-sentence for content, apparently intending it to be a list article. It was quickly changed to a redirect by Xender Lourdes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The redirect was better than the sentence, but... I realize that the term is arguably somewhat related to the target topic, but it is also something that someone just WP:MADEUP one day. Google search finds a total of seven occurrences of the term, one of them being WP's own redirect and the other six all at various blogs (two of them are at the same blog). So it's a made-up name that a completely negligible number of people have made up and with no RSs for its use. Accordingly, WP:R#DELETE reason 8, "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, [is] unlikely to be useful", applies. Thank you for your consideration. Jeh (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Later comment: "No RSs for its use" must be amended per the below comments. There are a few, and of course more might be found under similar search terms. Jeh (talk) 20:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I concur with the proposer, but to add, educational television is not about documentaries, and it seems to me that the difference between a pseudo-documentary and a mockumentary is that the first is not a satire and the second is, but it's a bit vague really, because for example in the lede for pseudo-documentary, the very famous Welles broadcast was never intended as either a hoax nor a documentary but a drama. Someone is mixing apples and oranges here, WP:RFD#D2 confusing to me at least. Presumably pseudo-educational television would either be a satirical/comedy programme guying children's programmes or the Open University or some such, but pseudo in a non-scientific sense usually is a loaded word that means passing off or basically fraudulent, none of which the target conveys. Si Trew (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I am not bent on either keep or delete (I am okay with any decision), this is not an obscure term in that sense. You have CIDOC documents and Colorado Quarterly using the term "pseudo-educational TV".[1][2]. You have a lovely book by David Bollier on Public assets, private profits using the term "pseudo-educational TV".[3]. David has written about this in this conference paper too, while using the term "pseudo-educational Channel One".[4] You also have the New York Times TV review using the term "pseudo-educational cable channels".[5] So I don't believe it is an obscure term at all. At the same time, like I mentioned, I have no preferences here on whether to keep or delete the redirect. Xender Lourdes (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to comment: Your first two links are from 1972 and 1971, the book and conference paper from 2001 (and by the same person), and the fifth from 2000. So your most recent is from a decade and a half ago. Yes, Googling for "pseudo-educational TV" does add 16 hits and "pseudo-educational cable" 11 more. (I haven't checked those for dupes.) But still, 33 hits total (counting WP's) for all of these tells me that despite Bollier's book (which did receive some attention at the time) the term did not get much uptake. It is not "obscure" in the sense of being difficult to grasp the meaning, but in terms of usage, "not known to most people", certainly. Jeh (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean Jeh. Your point seems sensible and pertinent. I also like the point Si Trew has made; that the redirect (even if it weren't obscure, in that sense) is not pointing to the right article. Xender Lourdes (talk) 20:06, 7 March 2016 (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.

Raymond Terrace Roosters[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) 13:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a pointless redirect. The target article does not mention this team at all. Neither does Raymond Terrace, which would have been the home of this team. Further adding to the confusion is that the target section is "Former Clubs", when this team appears to have a "Current" Facebook page.[6] The redirect is currently averaging 0.26 page views a day, with only 24 page views (many of which were probably me) in the past 90 days. AussieLegend (✉) 07:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Raymond Terrace Roosters are the junior squads of the senior Raymond Terrace Magpies team. The Magpies no longer compete in the Newcastle Rugby League but rather in lower grades now so that's why they are listed as a former team of the Newcastle Rugby League. Source for the Roosters and Magpies connection: http://www.foxsportspulse.com/club_info.cgi?c=0-2358-102870-0-0&sID=21721 Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The problem though is that this is not explained anywhere in any article. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:08, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Çomment. xref at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby league, perhaps some info could be added. (Mind the caps.) Si Trew (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment marked as {{R to section}} without prejudice, added section link into nomination (@AussieLegend: I guess since it is not in the article at all, your delete criteria stand and not the specific section that it ain't in – but I don't want to put words in your mouth, don't think I have.) Si Trew (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problems, the link seems quite appropriate. I didn't realise Twinkle hadn't included the section link so thank you for adding it. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:50, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, one of these days we should fix that. Perhaps when England gets freedom from Europe, and can we please have Australia back too? Si Trew (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I won't argue if you believe it meets the criteria to be deleted, it isn't in fact mentioned or explained in the article so that's fair enough. It was simply made to give readers a link to more information about a rugby league player's junior club, the closest information being the senior Raymond Terrace club existing as a former Newcastle Rugby League club. Josh the newcastle fan (talk) 13:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep As without prejudice deletion. --忍者ポップ (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean by that. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that 忍者ポップ will not be replying to my request as the account is globally locked, and is apparently a sockpuppet of globally locked Никита-Родин-2002. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:38, 14 March 2016 (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.

File:Joe.jpg[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 and salt. Deryck C. 13:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The page is currently a soft redirect to File:Image.png. Seeing as indefinite upload protection exists and generates an "overly vague filename" warning upon upload, this soft redirect can easily be replaced with such a protection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:38, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and protect The soft redirect does not actually redirect any file usage, so full protection would give the same result. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 09:19, 8 March 2016 (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.

Redirects to 1000 (number)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 March 14#Redirects to 1000 (number)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_7&oldid=1037903299"