Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 19, 2009

Fringe theory[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator (non-admin close) B.Wind (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the redirect so that a general article on the broader topic area can be written. The redirect is incaccurate since not all Fringe theories involve science. There are Fringe theories in just about ever accademic discipline. Fringe theories can also include pop-culture items such as conspiracy theories and urban ledgends. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the text at the top of this page, anyone is welcome to simply edit the redirect page in order to create an article (and this entry is not needed). Johnuniq (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR - I see now that I did not need to post the redirect here in order to write an article about it (it is not locked). I shall do so. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Electric Park[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep and make into a disambiguation page. I think that this would be the best option available to us, as the title can refer to any number of parks, after taking a glance at B. Wind's work. Killiondude (talk) 20:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion recommended. Tucson Electric Park was never referred to as "Electric Park." Electric Park is most widely known as the name of dozens of amusement parks in the early 20th Century (the original target of this redirect is to an article that mentions it cursorily as a former site of one of those Electric Parks. Electric Parks, White City parks, and Luna Parks were a significant part of U.S. entertainment history, and each of these ultimately needs its own article. A redirect at Electric Park is clearly insufficient. 207.244.179.110 (talk) 16:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Perhaps a disambiguation page would be appropriate then, with Electric Park redirecting to that instead. Thoughts? Hardtofindaname 10:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:B.Wind is preparing a list article, it seems. It's currently a sub-userpage (User:B.Wind/sandbox1). Nom appears as one of three contributors to it. It might be best to delete the redirect so that when/if he gets the list article ready for userspace, it can be moved into userspace without having to go through RfD or admin action after this. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and create a new disambiguation page at Electric Park (disambiguation). There are a larger amount of search results showing up for the stadium, in comparison to the amusement park type. –blurpeace (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, to clarify, I'd like to leave the current redirect, Electric Park, as is, due to its prominence in search results. I propose that we place the amusement park disambiguation in the header of the TEC article. –blurpeace (talk) 21:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and change into a disambig; it'll be less confusing then blurpeace's solution for people searching for the amusement parks. —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 20:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. As stated above, I am "incubating" an Electric Park list article in my userspace with the help of a couple of people. I have not "chimed in" on this entry as I believe it to be a conflict of interest for me, but as the time approaches in which I could push the proposed list article into articlespace, I need to "speak up" now.

The current redirect is about as useful as having Walker Bush redirecting to George Walker Bush as NO ONE refers to Tucson Electric Park as "Electric Park." Restoring the earlier target (to Vailsburg, Newark) would be misleading as it implies that the Newark Electric Park was the only one, rather than acknowledging that there have been DOZENS of electric parks. So a redirect is not worth keeping here. A dab page is not an option here as there are only two articles with fleeting mentions of Electric Parks (the other is List of baseball parks in San Antonio, Texas); and a list article is a far better option.

Deletion of the redirect is the superior option as it will allow me to move the list article from userspace to articlespace without having to involve the action of an admin or WP:RM, and I ask my fellow editors and the closing admin to consider this while this discussion continues. If this is closed as "keep," the list article would require a filing in WP:RM unless there is an admin who would be unwilling to overrule "consensus" in the case regarding the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: the proposed list article is nearing readiness for moving into articlespace. I'll wait until the closing of this discussion before proceeding further. I think I also have an Electric Park (disambiguation) page that can go up as soon as the list article is moved.B.Wind (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Argentina–Nigeria relations[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Killiondude (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Argentina–Nigeria relations → List of diplomatic missions of Argentina (links to redirect)
  • Delete an inappropriate redirect for a bilateral search term LibStar (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Redirects such as this was made as a comprimise to editors, a comprimise which the nominator adimently refused. LibStar mentions no policy in this redirect, Argentina–Nigeria relations is not an appropriate term? According to what policy? Ikip (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as the best solution to this particular pair. The article can be expanded subsequently. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with DGG's reasoning. A redirect is the best solution for now. Dream Focus 18:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Nominators only problem with this redirect seems to be that these articles were redirected to List of diplomatic missions, not Foreign relations of...[1] A quick message to me would have avoided this entire RFD, and the subsequent ANI and WT:AFD. Ikip (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirects are cheap and help readers find information. No valid deletion reason has been given. TerriersFan (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Real America[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion. This was originally created because Sarah Palin has referred to parts of the US as "Real America". The problem, as can be seen from the history, is that it's a term you can't really redirect properly without it being POV. America, Joe the Plumber, Red state, Union (American Civil War) have all been tried as targets. There just simply isn't a way to make it correct or POV. Besides, would anyone actually search by this term? The only link to this article (until I fixed it) was actually about a soccer club, not anything involving the target(s). User:Woohookitty Diamming fool! 05:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am the person who redirected it to America, where it currently points, because that seemed like the most innocuous place for it to point (and certainly better than Union (American Civil War), where it was pointing when I changed it.) Since America is itself a disambiguation page (and includes both "the Americas" and the U.S.A.), I don't think the current redirect is POV, but it is also basically meaningless. Therefore, I do not think there would be any harm in deleting it. Neutron (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletethe current target isn't really POV but all other past targets are and the current one is meaningless/pointless --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to Union (American Civil War). TharsHammar Bits andPieces 23:21, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preliminary comment (Palin and POV): We have reached Rfd at this time because of the August 2 redirect of "Real America" to Sarah Palin (who, as the edit summary explained, "popularized" the term) ... the August 17 noticing of that redirect on Talk:Sarah Palin ... and the aftermath: unlikely redirect, wrong form deletion request, removal of wrong form deletion request suggesting Rfd, redirect to achieve innocuous result. return to original redirect, self undoing, Rfd!

    NOTE: IF there was a section of Sarah Palin covering her political memes ("real America," "hockey mom," "death panels") THEN there would be nothing wrong with redirecting it there. I.E. It does not seem inherently "POV" to redirect a meme to the politician who made it a meme. WITHOUT such a section (which includes discussion of "Real America"), redirecting to the main article Sarah Palin may be "confusing," but not POV (skip long discussion at this time).

    BOTTOM LINE (for now): Every conceivable redirect of "Real America" is not inherently "POV." Pondering. (Interesting.) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as there have been multiple uses of the phrase predating Palin's use of it, many of them decades old. Also, The Real America is the title of a book written by Glenn Beck in 2005. Either an article covering the use of the phrase or a disambiguation page would be useful; a misleading redirect is not. Google "Real America" -Palin and see the multiple uses.B.Wind (talk) 16:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not really POV, but it seems useless to me.--Res2216firestar 21:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bang's[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 moot as I have overwritten the redirect with a disambiguation page (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 16:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect. "Bang's" isn't even close to "Barq's". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to DMB page. The rationale for the creation of the redirect has some validity. However, as there are, ermm, several Bang's, a DMB page is viable and looks more useful. Certainly no reason to delete. TerriersFan (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2009 (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/2009_August_19&oldid=1079395840"