Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 April 4

April 4[edit]

Southern mafia → Dixie Mafia[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Southern mafia was deleted at AfD. DRV overturned G4 speedy deletion of the redirect as inappropriate. The matter of the redirect is brought here for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 23:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dixie Mafia itself is a bit questionable but so long as it remains, Southern mafia is a reasonably similar potential search term to what would appear to be the same topic. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The terms "Dixie-Mafia" and "Southern Mafia" have been used apparently interchangebly, going back at least to 1993, when Scarfone writes about "Dixie-Mafia" or "Southern Mafia" working together with "Italian Mafia" in the South. His writing about the "Good Ol' Boy's Southern-Mafia" in Parts 3 and 4 shows its indigenous nature. MBHiii 17:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Unholy Alliance → Progressive Party (United States, 1912)[edit]

The result of the debate was Convert to disambig. We have two actual articles with Unholy Alliance in the title and many more that refer to the term (titles of books, etc.). This is an obvious case of disambiguation. If there are questions as to whether a link to Progressive Party (United States, 1912) should be on the disambig, that is a content issue that should be resolved on the talk page of the disambig. -- JLaTondre 02:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Unholy Alliance was deleted at AfD. Since reference to the Alliance was written into the Party Platform, DRV overturned G4 speedy deletion of the redirect as inappropriate. The matter of the redirect is brought here for full consideration. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 23:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At best the Progressive Party used the phrase in their party platform, and in no way was The Unholy Alliance a part of their platform, if such a thing can be said to exist. Anyway, misleading redirect as it can create the impression that the Progressive Party = Unholy Alliance, and the fact they used the phrase hardly creates any connection between them. Arkyan • ^(talk) 23:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence: Under the title, THE CONTROL OF CORPORATIONS AND "THE NEW FREEDOM" http://www.bartleby.com/55/15b.html immediately after the Unholy Alliance definition, TR goes on to quote 'This country belongs to the people. Its resources, its business, its laws, its institutions, should be utilized, maintained, or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest." This assertion is explicit. ... Mr. Wilson must know that every monopoly in the United States opposes the Progressive party. ... I challenge him ... to name the monopoly that did support the Progressive party, whether ... the Sugar Trust, the Steel Trust, the Harvester Trust, the Standard Oil Trust, the Tobacco Trust, or any other. ... Ours was the only programme to which they objected, and they supported either Mr. Wilson or Mr. Taft...' So it was the Trusts, and their hold over the GOP in particular (as people who remember their high school US history will recall), that were what TR had in mind when he wrote "the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics."

Second sentence: The redirect's not misleading if you go to that page, since the term is bolded and defined near the top. Redirects aren't limited to equivalencies only, but are used to include secondary subjects under a primary heading, as well. The original article mentioned TR's definition of the term, but you killed that. -MBHiii 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, because that's what JSTOR thinks it is. If there's more, change to dab page. ~ trialsanderrors 00:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JSTOR doesn't think, and you mention only one of many books Google found there with "Unholy Alliance" in the title. The original article mentioned TR's definition of the term and many other uses and shadings of meaning, but not this one. In fact, "unholy alliance" cannot be found on Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact at all. However, a general discussion of the meaning of an unholy alliance, as laid out in the original article, would probably allow for the Pact's inclusion as an example. -MBHiii 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it and allow future expansion to include such instances as the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact above, among many others. -MBHiii 20:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

CA? → Category:Asante[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. Category deleted so it's a db-redirnone in addition to arguments presented here. -- JLaTondre 21:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is unclear that anyone would ever search for someone or something named "Asante" by typing "CA?". The redirect simply is not useful and perhaps should be speedy deleted as nonsense. (The redirect CA?, the category Category:Asante, and a few other strange things were recently created by User:Derrty2033. The category is currently nominated for deletion because it simply associates unrelated things with a shared name.) Dr. Submillimeter 22:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What's the point of this? Besides the fact it shouldn't be redirect to category, it's silly. If I searched for Helicopter, I wouldn't be searching for "Helicopter?" This is freakin' pointless. If it wasn't a category and CA would be short it should be on CA page. However, it's not, it's just pointless. TheBlazikenMaster 20:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless redirect--$UIT 01:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pokeyman → Bill Cosby[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. KFP (talk | contribs) 19:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes no sense, I got this one off of Reddit, and was fairly surprised. --Danlock2 21:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since I submitted before, someone has changed this so that it has the apparant quote from the show? Strong Delete :-D --Danlock2 16:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned on target page--only thing we have is the creator's edit summary of "he once made this statement on a Simpsons appearance, this quote has become associated with him as an Internet meme". Yeah, The Coz said it, but he says lots of things many places and lots of things are said on the Simpsons. I can't find evidence of it really being a meme of some sort. Redirects are cheap, but this isn't even useful at zero cost IMO. DMacks 21:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The association doesn't go any further than an internet meme, and it is not likely a search term on its own - if anything it should redirec to Pokemon as a potential misspelling. Arkyan  ^(talk) 23:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Simpsons "appearance" was an impersonation; Cosby himself has never actually said this. Not a useful redirect, perhaps even misleading. Krimpet (talk/review) 06:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete?! Delete with the delly and the leet and the words that go out of the server and arrgh arrgh arrgh JuJube 08:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculous redirect. Cosby never even said this--$UIT 01:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsence. —dima /talk/ 18:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:ISR → Wikipedia:Ignore some rules[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy delete. Picaroon 19:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page redirected to has been deleted -- Marcsin |^Talk 18:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete CSD R1 (page redirected to has been deleted). So tagged. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:WikiProject Launch vehicles/Members → Wikipedia:WikiProject Launch vehicles/Members[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. John Reaves (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useless cross-namespace redirect. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 18:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It has no useful edit history and no significant incoming links. It's not even useful as a shorcut as it's just 1 letter shorter than the target. -- Black Falcon 06:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia pages can be transcluded and this isn't going to be used in the mainspace. matt br 14:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Neo-techian → Frank R. Wallace[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. John Reaves (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Neo-Techian (with a capital "T") → Frank R. Wallace

Totally pointless redirects from an obscure term which almost nobody actually uses — a Google search turns up only 5 instances of the use of "Neo-techian". Bi 08:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep but Rename to Neo-Tech. If Wallace rate an article, the name of his philosophy rates a redirect. Herostratus 15:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In a way, that's done already. There's a "Neo-Tech" disambiguation page; one of the disambiguation links go to "Frank R. Wallace". Thus in my mind a Rename to "Neo-Tech" will be essentially equivalent to a Delete. Bi 18:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

John Reaves (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise sex → Rape[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy delete by NawlinWiki. WjBscribe 20:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A term that came out of jokes about rape that are irrelevant. T. Kewl the First 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I personally think that this would be searched for. It's a fairly common term. Ab e g92contribs 10:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surprise sex? Give me a break. Talk about offensive. That's not reason for deleting it, the reason is marginal term per nom. Herostratus 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as G4 per here and here. I have tagged it. Gavia immer (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Copper family → Group 11 element[edit]

The result of the debate was retargeted to Copper Family with {{redirect}} at the top of the article. John Reaves (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an article called Copper family about the British traditional singers. This cannot be found by searching of it because of this redirect. QuestingVole 15:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect page. Ordinarily, this would be a perfect situation where one have Copper Family as a disambiguation page (and Copper family redirect to it, or vice versa). The existing Copper Family would be moved to Copper Family (musical group). That way, no matter which meaning one means"when searching, one still finds the "right" page. However, the scientific meaning is rare at best. Maybe better to take a different disambiuguation approach and just have a {{redirect}}, for example:

at the top of the Copper Family. Copper family would be a #REDIRECT to Copper Family, so the most common meaning is available directly, and the other one is available directly from there. DMacks 17:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to disambiguation page per DMacks. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to disambiguation page - A Google search on '"copper family" -wikipedia -folk' did produce a few pages that actually refer to the chemical elements. In light of these results, a disambiguation page would probably be appropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 22:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I first raised this discussion, I had not realised that searches were case dependant and that Copper Family would take me where I wanted to go. However, while the current members of the family may perform under that name, there is a broader meaning. They are a family with the surname Copper who have lived and sung in Sussex for several generations. They are significant as social history and for their influence on the English folk revival. I don't feel that Copper Family (musical group) quite covers that. The term "Copper family" is not used in the Group 11 element article so I agree with DMacks' second suggestion that Copper family should #REDIRECT to Copper Family with a redirect5 to the Group 11 elements.QuestingVole 11:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.