Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 20[edit]

Cedarview Middle School → Barrhaven, Ontario[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept & changed to link to the Education section of the target page. -- JLaTondre 12:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to page with no info about the school, only a link to the redirect LK 21:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is great debate over whether schools are inherently notable enough for independent articles. To the extent that there is any consensus on the issue at all, it is that the articles should usually be merged and redirected to the page about the township where the school is located. The more junior the school, the clearer the consensus (that is, essentially all elementary schools should be redirected, most colleges should not, high schools are in the middle and remain hotly disputed). Be bold and pull the content out the the redirect's page history and update the page about the town if you like but deleting the redirect altogether would be likely to stir up a great deal of unnecessary controversy. However, you are correct that the circular redirect must be removed. I'll go fix that. Rossami (talk) 21:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (minor quibble): actually, I think it's generally preferred to redirect to an article about the school district, if possible. Since there doesn't seem to be such an article in this case, it might be appropriate to retarget to Barrhaven, Ontario#Education and tag the redirect as {{R to section}}. Xtifr tälk 23:34, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Barrhaven, Ontario#Education, per Xtifr. These types of things are likely to be re-created again and again, so there's really no sense but to create as an article or redirect to a relevant and closely related topic. Xtifr's suggestion is best, unless a better alternative is found. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gregory Parker → Chappaquiddick incident[edit]

The result of the debate was speedily deleted by DGG as below. mattbr 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense 64.128.172.132 18:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just speedy-deleted it as nonsense. It is one of a series of equally nonsensical redirects made after an article about this totally unimportant person was very properly speedied. DGG (talk) 18:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Faceosphere → Facebook[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 16:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in redirect target. Not likely to be, either, as this is a website promoting a neologism that (as the creator's edit summary points out) gets all of 23 google hits excluding Wikipedia. Given the extreme hostility of the site's promoters, I'm not inclined to reward them even with a redirect. —Cryptic 13:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Normally, a redirect would be an acceptable compromise to avoid the creation of yet more pages about neologisms. In this case, however, the Deletion Review decision takes precedence. Delete. Rossami (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - Faceosphere.com is a completely non-notable site. "Faceosphere", ("Facebook" +"blogosphere") on the other hand is a neologism being promoted to refer to the contents of Facebook the way blogosphere refers to the contents of the blogs. I ran across the term and had to google it to get an idea of what it meant. If someone wikipedia's the term, it would be useful to redirect them to Facebook and then the meaning of the term becomes immediately obvious to most people. The meaning of Faceosphere relates to Facebook and not to Faceosphere.com. This redirect in no way rewards them. All that said, I don't really care all that much either way. I've never even read content at the Facebook site. WAS 4.250 23:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as neologism relating to a notable feature of Facebook, SqueakBox 23:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as utterly non-notable neologism and as attempted spam. If the website operators so desperately want the Googlejuice, they'll have to earn it the old-fashioned way. --Calton | Talk 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
utterly non-notable neologism Yes. redirect as spam No. WAS 4.250 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
utterly non-notable neologism Yes. redirect as WP:COI No. WAS 4.250 16:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Highly unlikely search term, not even mentioned on target page - appears to be simply a vain attempt to get the neologism 'faceosphere' onto Wikipedia somewhere. Utterly useless as a redirect. Terraxos 23:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firm Delete and SALT -- a nn neologism being pushed onto Wikipedia by its site creator, a violation of WP:COI. Also, faceosphere failed a Deletion Review, creating a precedent for it to not be worthwhile on Wikipedia. ALSO, creator has threatened to use sockpuppetry to push for it to stick, see WikipediaReview.com forum. (Hence why I push for SALTing to prevent page re-creation) -- Guroadrunner 11:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that this decision is being linked on Faceosphere.com -- Guroadrunner 12:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Franco Cozzo → User:Rogerthat/Franco Cozzo[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy delete, WP:CSD#R2. —Cryptic 13:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Points to a user subpage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Remy B (talk • contribs) 12:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

BritneySpears → Britney Spears[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy keep per WP:SNOW, we have plenty of these redirects and there is no reason to delete them. Melsaran (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for a CamelCase redirect. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 00:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, see WP:RFD#keep #4 - there's no way to tell how many pages are scattered through the web that link here. (Besides, it's been around since February! 2! Thousand! And 1!) —Cryptic 13:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cryptic and the lack of a reason to delete. Kusma (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many reasons to keep around the old redirect formats. As Cryptic points out, the old CamelCase redirects are explicitly cited as an example of redirects that should not be deleted. Rossami (talk) 14:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The guide of when not to delete a CamelCase redirect are there for a reason. Their usefulness is assumed and not required to be proven, and therefore should be generally kept. Some of us tend to forget these facts and guidelines during nominations (myself included), so its a common misconception. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 14:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that's not quite accurate. The guideline doesn't say that usefulness is assumed, it merely says that any claim of usefulness should be accepted. Useless is, indeed, a valid argument for deletion, and, in fact, we even have a speedy criterion for a subset of redirects that have no problem aside from being useless (WP:CSD#R3). Academic in this case, since the redirect is clearly useful, but worth keeping in mind. Xtifr tälk 00:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify, I was talking about CamelCase redirects specifically. What I meant to say was that the guideline states: You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing external links pointing to them. Users sometimes argue that this probability is relatively low or non-existent and therefore merits deletion, while the guidelines states that if there's still any probability, it should be considered useful and therefore kept. I erred in not specifying which type of redirect I was referring to. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 00:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough—I was mostly concerned because I've seen others make the broader and incorrect assumption. Cheers, Xtifr tälk 00:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep this is a good redirect, classic typo that if we delete it will just annoy our clients, why would we want that? SqueakBox 23:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both for the history (and possible associated external links) and as a very plausible typo. Should be tagged as {{R from CamelCase}}, of course. Tagging as {{R from misspelling}} is probably not necessary. Xtifr tälk 23:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Batman/Batman → Batman (1989 film)[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 12:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't articles linked to this redirect. David Pro 21:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Documents an old pagemove. Per "keep if" #4 above, pagemoves are generally considered useful history. Does not appear to meet any of the "delete if" criteria above. The fact that a redirect currently has no inbound links is not a reason to delete it. In a perfect world, none of them would. They are kept because they serve other purposes as well. Rossami (talk) 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a nonsense redirect and harmful, because a redirect can't have Name page/Name page David Pro 23:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not make explicit "delete" votescomments in the bulleted section of a discussion when you are the nominator. It give the impression that you're trying to have your opinion double-counted and creates potential confusion for the admin who eventually have to close the discussion.
    • It is not nonsense. It is a hold-over from when the project used to use sub-pages. We moved away from that structure for lots of good reasons but we keep the old redirects around intentionally. Look at the CamelCase discussion above for another example of keeping redirects even though we've changed the naming conventions. And, yes, a redirect can have the format Name page/Name page → something because Namepage/Namepage is itself just another page. Try it. It works fine. Rossami (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are many redirects like this, as part of the old article name format. The guideline states: You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing external links pointing to them. Although links in Wikipedia to this redirect have been corrected, there may be many other webpages outside WP that have not. As there is no way of accurately determining this, the most conservative approach is to keep. And as Rossami stated, it has a useful page history. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 00:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect isn't useful. David Pro 18:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember, this is a discussion, not a vote count. You can add to your suggestions and arguments within your nomination, or subsequently, directly to another user's comments. There's no need to say delete three times. It doesn't make any difference in the end. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Articles don't have to be linked to a redirect for it to be useful. If there is any chance of someone typing it into a search, it's useful. Doczilla 05:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_September_20&oldid=1145624711"