Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 29, 2009

Trigence[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted. Killiondude (talk) 05:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - see discussion at User_talk:SF007#Trigence - new company name is appzero, which has no Wikipedia entry and isn't notable UncleDouggie (talk) 22:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tagged for speedy deletion per discussion mentioned above. B.Wind (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Crystal Harris[edit]

The result of the discussion was Redirect turned into an article following WP:PORNBIO. Non-admin closure. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to assert that she is now noteworthy enough to have her own article. The redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect. 76.115.141.29 (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - She will be Playmate of the Month for December 2009 per this. The WeKinglyPigs site is a reliable source which those involved in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography have been using for quite some time. Dismas|(talk) 05:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a template of sorts to the talk page for the redirect. This is for when the redirect is turned into a full article. All that needs to be done is to have the template copy/pasted into the article and the "nowiki" tags to be removed. Dismas|(talk) 05:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just write the article no discussion needed. Rich Farmbrough, 13:09, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sexual preference[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Sexual preference" includes more than the property of being attracted to people based on what gender/sex they are. It can include preferences for body shape, age, race, or any other number of imaginable factors. Misleading. Whyisthisnotme (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP - phrase discussed in target article. B.Wind (talk) 23:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, so "phrase discussed in target article" is a good argument, but what are you referring to in WP:RFD#KEEP? Are you proposing WP:RFD#KEEP#3 (They aid searches on certain terms.) or simply WP:RFD#KEEP#4 (Someone finds them useful.)? Citing chapter without verse makes your statements unclear. WP:RFD#KEEP is not a synonym for Keep. -- Thinking of England (talk) 03:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When someone says to another person "What is so-and-so's sexual preference?" the interrogator almost certainly means "What is so-and-so's sexual orientation?" Sexual preference could theoretically link elsewhere (Pansexual, maybe, but the talkpage has some good reasons for this merge) but its most common usage is definitely to orientation, so let's keep it there for maximum usability. Besides, the orientation article lists the many options possible ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 21:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - "Sexual preference" is idiomatic, indicating sexual orientation. Intelligentsium 01:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - or you could change the redirect to point to Human_sexuality#Sexual_activity_and_lifestyles. I'd prefer keeping the current arrangement, though, since as others have said in the idiom sexual preference refers to orientation. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alfonso Plazas Vega Conspiracy[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep; merge issues are still up in the air and in general there's no consensus, or strong reason, to delete this redirect. ~ mazca talk 20:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deltetion or Change of Name for reason that the redirect page redirects the user to a page, Palace of Justice siege, that has little or no revelant connection to the title of the redirect. Notice will be posted on the creator's user page of this proposition. 68.205.75.12 (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This used to be a page that was an article, but was proposed for deletion, and it was decided it should merge. Though the page it was to merge to says nothing about a conspiracy of the subject.--Tlk041394 (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or we become AfD by the back door. The content was either never merged or was lost since. Amnesty say:

In July, retired army Colonel Alfonso Plazas Vega was arrested for his part in the enforced disappearance of 11 people during a military assault on the Palace of Justice in Bogotá after M-19 guerrillas took hostage those inside in November 1985. Over 100 people died during the military assault, including 12 Supreme Court judges. In September, Attorney General Mario Iguarán said there was strong evidence that many of those who disappeared were alive when they left the building.

Rich Farmbrough, 13:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Change Name or Delete Content was merged as stub, and was then deleted, as it did not make a large contribution to the redirected article. What Rich states is already included in the Palace of Justice Siege article, though such claim is disputed in the talk page of the article, as other sources contadict on ly what amnesty says. Either change the name to something more related to the palace of justice siege, or delete, as just because the plazas entity is related somewhat to the event, there is no proof showing there is a conspiracy agaisnt him, and according to "El Tiempo", has done more than just been partly involved in the palace of justice siege, so his name should not redirect to the article of a event, like redirecting "stalin" to "soviet Union". If it is felt that he must be mentioned as an entity, please delete this page, and create a biography article of the person, and link it to the palace of justice siege page. Thank you.--Onlytheone (talk) 01:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted above yes i stated that above, but thank you.--Tlk041394 (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that I have provided a link to the previous deletion discussion... but I'll be glad to accept the positive feeling (and thank you). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
oh, sorry, i hadn't noticed. Thanks again.--Tlk041394 (talk) 22:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the result of the AfD is merge, the redirect is necessary. If the content was never merged, it should be merged now. (I am not saying the purpose of this was to undercut the AfD decision, but some such "merges" with the redirects then deleted have been in various topics), DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pidgit, Ninji (Nintendo)[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 both (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't covered within the list. TTN (talk) 19:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 09:43, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so add them to the list. There's enough info in the article before it was changed to a redirect. I haven't checked the history to see why they werent added when the redirect was created. That's what should have been done. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - even if they aren't on the list that is the page we want people to go to. Not to start a new "pidgit" article. Rich Farmbrough, 13:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

A Song fo Chi[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedily deleted by Skier Dude. Tikiwont (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong spelling JL 09 q?c 09:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete It was an honest mistake by yours truly when I created the article.... Roger Workman (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tagged for speedy deletion per above post. B.Wind (talk) 22:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should have kept - people tend to make the same typos. Rich Farmbrough, 13:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Harvesting of Organs from Falun Gong Prisoners[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep - There was clear consensus to keep the first two/three, and no consensus to delete the fourth. Killiondude (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup. Move to delete redirects with incorrect capitalisations, making them unlikely search terms Ohconfucius (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep first and second as plausible typo variants of likely search items and delete third and fourth as highly unlikely search items (particularly the fourth, which appears to be simply three words that were put into a Google search). In the case of the third redirect, the extraneous word "live" makes it much less likely to be used as a search item as the title of the target article.B.Wind (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital is implicated in the affair. Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep all - the capitalization differences will mostly work out thanks to the search bar:
  • Keep the first two as very likely search terms - I would use the first one myself.
  • Keep the third as a (less) likely search term. Admittedly it's very wordy, but the fact that these were live organs is a relevant issue in the case.
  • Keep the fourth. The only mention of a hospital is in terms of this issue, so I can see the argument for deletion based off of the negative association. That being said, however, the redirect isn't "Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital is (whatever)" but rather a link to a factual presentation of the only notable presence it serves. Hence, it is neutral (not required) and useful and should be kept. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep first three as likely search terms; delete fourth as "Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital" (this exact phrase) is nowhere to be found in the target article. Implication or not, the inclusion of the entire name of the hospital would not only give the redirect meaning (and reduce confusion - currently there is only a supposition of the connection), it would also make the article actually have more sense in its presentation compared to now. Should someone be bold enough to insert it into the article, my "delete" would convert to a "keep" - but not before. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first three nominees are directly affected by the merge, and Amory's assertion of the discussion being moot seems true for these three. The fourth is not so clean cut as even in the new target, "Sujiatun Thrombosis Hospital" is still not mentioned. Amory's previous assertion would be bolstered if the entire name of the institution is properly placed within the target article; until then, this would in fact be a potentially confusing redirect. Neutrality (or lack thereof) is not an issue when it comes to redirects (see WP:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects): whether or not it meets WP:RFD#KEEP for inclusion or WP:RFD#DELETE for removal of a redirect is. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

James Nintendo Nerd[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 close). B.Wind (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At no point was AVGN ever referred to by this title. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. According to the article, The Angry Video Game Nerd originated from the YouTube user "JamesNintendoNerd". Not entirely sure if that's the case due to the lack of sourcing, but it seems like a plausible search term. — Σxplicit 05:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TPH&HO. Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. "JamesNintendoNerd" is his youtube channel. Plausible redirect. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as the target remains in articlespace. I am not sure if the target meets notability guidelines (citations are from primary sources, and I don't see evidence of coverage by independent secondary sources, but that's for a different forum). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's been mentioned in secondary sources, so it qualifies. I remember I was part of getting it undeleted, but it seems the article has...well, not aged well. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:31, 1 September 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_29&oldid=1144358922"