Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 16, 2009

WYPX-LP[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 09:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There has never, as far as I know, been a station known as "WYPX-LP", much less one associated with WYPX-TV. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All I could find was this which is patently useless. I saw you contact the user, but she hasn't edited within two years, so as such I guess I'll have to go with Delete for reasons of lack of verifiability. In three years no one has linked to it, so clearly nobody is getting any use out of it. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tracie Washington[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Potentially useful redirect—lack of notability is not enough to delete a useful redirect. In addition, deletion will not change anything, because the search will lead to the same article anyway. Ruslik_Zero 11:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly improbable search term that directs to a barely notable person. Otto4711 (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It's a viable, albeit not high-use, redirect. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So someone searching for the New Orleans director of sanitation who doesn't know the name of the NO director of sanitation is going to know the name of and search for the NO director of sanitation's lawyer?! Otto4711 (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...why would you assume that someone that doesn't know the director's name would know the lawyer's? EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't assume that someone who doesn't know the director's name would know the lawyer's name. "Gosh, I can't think of the name of that obscure political functionary from New Orleans, but isn't her lawyer Tracie Washington?" Unlikely in the extreme. Not gonna happen. Otto4711 (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what of the scenario where the person knows both names?
    Keep in mind we're talking about just a redirect. I really can't see why it's an issue, given that the redirect goes to a perfectly valid (and, more importantly, properly sourced) section. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Barely notable is still notable. Even if this redirect does barely any good, barely any good is still good.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the nature of the incident (email, confidentiality, FBI), Washington could be brought up again. I know that isn't reason enough to keep the redirect, but she is a potential, albeit unlikely, search term, and between the two I think it makes the case. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 17:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and BLP concerns, and revise the section title at the target article (the section is about the controversy, not about Tracie Washington). I am not a fan of redirecting the names of living people to articles about different people, especially when the relationship between the two is anything less than marital or familial and especially more so when the redirect leads to a section about controversy with potential negative implications for the subject of the redirect. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 21:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as it lets the user find relevent content. Whether she is notable or not is a question for the target article, not the redirect. PaulJones (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Otto and Black Falcon and I think there are BLP concerns in redirecting the name of a not notable person to a controversy section in an article about a second person, especially when the section (in fact, the entire article) is unbalanced and controversial. I also feel this article has overt BLP issues anyway and it appears to be an article about a local scandal mascarading as a biography.There's something wrong when you have an article which purports to be a biography of a living person and yet the only personal information, the academic section, is two sentences long and shoved to the very end of the article. Also, the sourcing includes citing personal data to a peoplesearch entry for the 49 people called "Veronica White" in Louisiana and we just presume we've got the right one and that there isn't someone who shares the same full name (I have cousins named in full after fathers, mothers, grandfathers, uncles, aunts and such so I'm not very convinced by this and don't think it complies with our strict policy on sourcing biographies of living people), and in the section we're pointing this redirect at we're also sourcing controversial information to a bunch of blogs (including a page which lists all the WordPress blogs about Veronica White). BLP applies to all pages, and I don't think redirecting the name of a not notable person to a BLP about another person which has - IMHO - obvious neutrality, UNDUE, verifiability, etc problems complies with policy. I also don't think this is actually a helpful redirect and if someone is looking for information on Tracie Washington, what they will get on that page is information about a local scandal in which Washington was a central figure's lawyer, and not information about the person herself. I would actually be quite annoyed if I was looking up Tracie Washington and then had to read that page or section to discover that we don't actually know anything at all about this person except for the fact she represented Veronica White. That's not helpful. (apologies for the rant, I became progressively irritated as I read this set of articles.) Sarah 14:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have changed the name of the section in the Veronica White article to "Controversy". Ultimately, the section is about controversy involving White, not about Tracie Washington. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here's the comment posted on discussion of the Veronica White article, apparently before the discussion here got going:
Split "Tracie Washington" to a new article on her?
  • [Delete?—]No, not yet - Tracie Washington is Veronica White's attorney. White speaks through Washington. Washington acts on behalf of White. So splitting the article now (2009 June) is not necessary and might be confusing. At present the relationship is best handled by an article on White serving as the target of a redirect from Washington. If at some later date the facts of Tracie Washington alone, especially facts unrelated to her serving as the attorney for White, should grow, then she should be split into a selfstanding article. We are (and she is) not there yet. Rammer (talk) 03:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. Now, as events have unfolded through June 27 (see Stacy_Head#Internet_posting), I agree with BLACK FALCON about the merits of changing the subheading if that change helps to ameliorate any concerns. The situation, nonetheless, between Stacy Head and Tracie Washington has meanwhile taken on a life of its own. For the time being, I prefer to keep information about Washington in the article on Veronica White because Washington is White's legal agent and because the Washington article is shorter than the Head article, but the time MAY be coming when Washington can go to a selfstanding article—i.e., when Washington's notability grows preponderantly beyond her role as White's legal spokesperson. Until then, can anyone offer guidance on when a lawyer, who represents a client and speaks for that client, develops noteworthiness beyond that of the client? If we go too quickly down that road, we'll inexorably end up with articles about the microphone involved in statements on behalf of the client, the wiring, the amplifier, the megaphone, or any other conduit which the client uses. Rammer (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Michael Jordan eating at McDonald's[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete under G7. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nonsense redirect made as a joke in response to a DRV. Probably speediable as an "implausible misnomer". Otto4711 (talk) 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need to apologize. I like a good joke redirect as much as the next guy (I once redirected Cowsay when it was a redlink to Moo). Can authors request speedy deletion of redirects? Otto4711 (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll request a speedy on it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Alara - (NWN 2)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I originally proposed this article for deletion, and it was redirected. The problem is, I can't even confirm the existence of a Neverwinter Nights 2 module related to Shards of Alara, so this redirect seems pointless. It is an impossible search term (IMO), both because of the abbreviation ("NWN 2") and the fact that the expansion's existence cannot be verified (at least not with a multiple-page long Google search). "Shards of Alara" is, more or less, completely unrelated to Neverwinter Nights 2, I doubt that there would be an official crossover, and right now the article that was here (and now the remainder in the form of this redirect) is probably either WP:CRYSTAL or WP:HOAX, and the article that was here certainly failed WP:V. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 04:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Satisfies pretty much all the usual suspects at RfD - WP:V, improbable search term (NWN), and is likely a hoax. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 17:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:GURCH[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete under G7. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from WP space to user space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep See the previous RfD for this exact same redirect. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_16&oldid=1144719268"