Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 5, 2009

Visaria method → Rubik's cube[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article was about a non-notable method of solving the Rubik's cube. The article was declined for speedy (rightly) and then prodded. Unfortunately the prod did not result in deletion but a merge into Rubik's cube. This material was subsequently deleted from the article (non-notable and unsourced). The redirect is now left pointing at an article which does not discuss the subject. SpinningSpark 21:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed. Methods for solving the Rubik's Cube are like a**holes. Everybody's got one. No Google matches for "Visaria Method" outside the article itself (it hasn't gotten to mirrors yet). - Richfife (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - until and unless this method is mentioned in the target page. TerriersFan (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support deletion in principle, but I have a concern: since the article was merged, wouldn't deleting the redirect violate the GFDL? The user who performed the merge (Esasus) is credited in the edit history of Rubik's cube, but the user who wrote the content (Neovaysburd5) at the original page is not. If this is an issue, would a dummy edit to credit Neovaysburd5 take care of the problem and clear the way for deletion? –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:12, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the material was quickly deleted from the Rubik's cube article and nobody there is supporting adding it I fail to see what exactly Neovaysburd5 is to be credited with, but I have made such a dummy edit to allay any concerns. In any case, if there is a problem, it is a problem with the Rubik's cube article history, it should have no bearing on the decision regarding this redirect one way or the other. SpinningSpark 22:41, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concern stemmed from the portion of Help:Merging and moving pages which states: "The GFDL requires acknowledgement of all contributors, and editors continue to hold copyright on their contributions unless they specifically give up this right. Hence it is required that edit histories be preserved for all major contributions until the normal copyright expires." In any case, in light of your dummy edit, I now support deletion. Thanks, –Black Falcon (Talk) 23:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Environment of Thailand → Environmental issues in Thailand[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Topic outline of Thailand#Environment of Thailand. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or possibly disambiguate, although creation of the article would be the optimal solution. Since the main environment article is missing, I don't think it should be redirected to a subtopic but should rather allow the user to browse through the search results for articles relevant to what he/she is looking for instead. Paul_012 (talk) 12:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Prophetic worship → Spontaneous worship[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete via CSD G8; target deleted by proposed deletion. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I attempted to rescue the least bad parts of the article by merging it. However, after further editing and discussion, and an unfruitful search for WP:RS, I removed the remaining material as a neologism. There is no consistent definition even among practitioners, and no independent commentary. Discussion on both talk pages strongly supports deletion. Fayenatic (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: agree. These two terms appear to be part of a loosely-connected and poorly documented constellation of terms that need a more substantial 'center of gravity' than either offers if such material is to coalesce into a sustainable article? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for result of prod on Spontaneous worship. If it is deleted then obviously Prophetic worship should be deleted as well. If "spontaneous worship" is kept then probably "prophetic worship" should be kept as well. Both terms seems genuine and there is a reasonable number of ghits where both terms occur on the same page and includes some that use the phrase "prophetic spontaneous worship". My understanding is that prophetic worship is a subset of spontaneous worship and is therefore a valid redirect. Reliable sources for all this are another matter of course. SpinningSpark 11:54, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ed Poor → Grumman[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Edmund Ward Poor. Ed is a reasonable search term for Edmund. If the article survives AFD, then it should redirect there. If the article is deleted, then the redirect will be deleted per CSD. If the article is merged, then it can be re-targeted back to Grumman. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know why this redirect exists, so I am RFDing it in case someone can provide an explanation. Is User:Ed Poor related to Grumman? Ryan Delaney talk 02:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is related to Edmund Ward Poor (also a redirect), who was a cofounder of Grumman. Apparently User:Ed Poor is his grandson (I get this just from the history of the various redirects). However, there's no evidence I can find that Edmund Ward Poor was commonly referred to as Ed Poor, at least in public discussion. Since the redirect has a history of problematic edits (see history), it's probably best not to have this. I'm going to give User:Ed Poor a heads-up that this is being discussed here. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went out to Long Island and visited a book store on the shores of Lake Ronkonkoma. It turned out the owner of the bookstore used to work at Grumman. I told him my grandfather, Edmund Ward Poor, used to be the treasurer of Grumman. He said, "Oh, you mean Ed Poor?" --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's a reliable source if ever there was one. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not in the Wikipedia sense, but there's no reason to think otherwise. B.Wind (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It doesn't matter whether this redirect is kept or not. The only link I found to the man was in the Jake Swirbul article. I've changed that link from Ed Poor to Edmund Ward Poor (coded as [[Edmund Ward Poor|Ed Poor]] so it reaches the correct target. I also revived the Edmund Ward Poor article, which had been reduced to a redirect. No actual merge had been done. Finally, as a descendant I have a personal "interest" (COI?), so whatever you all choose is perfectly fine with me. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since the Edmund Ward Poor page was previously redirected without consensus at AfD, and has now been restored as an article, if kept the redirect should obviously be retargeted to Edmund Ward Poor. The fact that there was an incoming link an hour ago probably suggests that the redirect is serving its purpose and should be kept. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Edmund Ward Poor as Paul makes an excellent point (as does "Uncle Ed"). This is one case where we don't have to stick tightly to WP:RS as "Edmund" is often shortened to "Ed" (note: since it is already retargeted as suggested, this would be a "keep as is" suggestion). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - new target is up for AfD for the second time. Should it be deleted, a retargeted Ed Poor would be subject to CSD G8 deletion unless the retargeting is reverted. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_5&oldid=1071658446"