Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 8, 2009

Poccnr[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Killiondude (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems like a poor attempt at a representation of the Cyrillic Россия (local name for Russia) using the Latin alphabet. Aside from the fact that this redirect makes no sense, Россия already redirects to Russia (as local names for most other countries do), so there is no need for a silly redirect like "Poccnr". GSMR (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep people always write poor latinized versions of Cyrillic words, since this is a direct latin letter substitution of the native cyrillic form, I think it's an acceptable redirect. Afterall, we do think CCCP is an acceptable redirect to have, don't we? 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe CCCP should exist either, but in the case of CCCP the characters actually do look identical to their Cyrillic counterparts. "n" and "r" (especially since they're lower case) look nothing like и and я. Hey, the local name for Japan (日本) kind of looks like B†, so why not redirect that to Japan? GSMR (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • How many times have you seen someone try to type Japanese, by imitating its written form, on a latin keyboard (as opposed to pronounciation) ? But people always seem to try it with Cyrillic. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then it should be POCCNR, which actually resembles Россия. Poccnr (because of the last two letters) does not. GSMR (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Wikipedia will automagically catch the uppercase form using a lowercase redirect. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, agree with GSMR. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like a reasonable attempt at a "faux cyrillic" search, it may well be typed by searchers with latin keyboards (e.g., most English speakers), and it harms nothing by existing. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Poccnr & http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poccnr - these ref shows tht therzz no harm in leaving this redirect . .
    • Yes, because UrbanDictionary is such a reliable source... and that TFD entry happens to be a mirror of Wikipedia... GSMR (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Perhaps if it catches on as a term (such as CCCP) we can recreate. But the point of this exercise is to clear up clutter and crud. --HighKing (talk) 01:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some people seem to find it useful (see Wikipedia:RFD#KEEP point 5) and I don't see a problem with it. According to the Ghits it isn't that obscure nor would any other reason of Wikipedia:RFD#DELETE seem to apply.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Immaculate conception seminary[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Better disambiguation at the discretion of editors Tikiwont (talk) 08:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the page this redirects to is about a school in New Jersey, but all the pages that link to the redirect are talking about a seminary in New York. The one in New York does not have an article, as far as I can tell. Auntof6 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This seems like a reasonable search term for the target. If there are erroneous links to it, then clean those up; theya ren't reason enough for deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other links aren't erroneous; they're for a different institution called simply "Immaculate Conception Seminary". How about changing this redirect to a dab page that lists both? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab seems best option. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2008 Soccer Championship[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:54, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the redirect by accident - I'd like a Speedy Delete. Nfitz (talk) 15:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aerial combat engagements between cyprus and turkey[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Killiondude (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this here from AfD, where it was nominated for deletion by Socrates2008 (talk). The rationale was "Pointless redirection of a long, orphaned article name." I am neutral. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Has been created as part of a series of redirects from a title with another method of capitalization by a bot (BOTijo). As far as I see the bot has been reconfigured to not create such redirects anymore, but there is no point either in now deleting them.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Vichy liberalism[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving this here from AfD, where it was originally sent by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs). Rationale was "The term was used by a writer in an article. It does not refer to liberals in the Vichy Republic but is a sarcastic reference to American liberals. Not notable." I am neutral. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If anyone searches for the term, it makes sense to just use the redirect. Redirects are not the same as articles -- all they are is road maps which say "detour" hence they do not need any notability at all. The usual reason for objecting to a redirect is where there is an actual articl being bypassed. Collect (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term was used by LK Samuels in an article The Arrogant Self-Righteousness of Vichy Liberalism at LewRockwell.com. There he states:
Except for the "classical liberals" who still adhered to the traditions of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, most modern liberals embraced the redistribution of wealth, larger government agencies, and a bureaucratic society dependent on the largesse of the political system. They have legislated womb-to-tomb economic policies reminiscent of 1930s–40s national socialism in Europe, embodied in the Vichy regime in France – hence my term "Vichy liberalism."[1] (my emphasis)
The suggestion that someone would search for the term is unbelievable. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term is an OR coinage not as yet used by anyone other than the creator. The objection to this redirect is not that an article is being bypassed, rather that the concept of "Vichy liberalism" (whether equatable to Social liberalism or not) does not exist, certainly not to Wikipedia standards. Declan Clam (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is rather obscure and the intended meaning by one author can only explained with direct quote, so bumping readers over to the current target is unlikely to be helpful.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Miss World 2011[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 03:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "Miss World 2011" article. The event is too far away in the future to have some verified facts included, other than the assumption that it will take place in 2011. Joey80 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it's a redirect, it's not an article, what facts do you need, aside from a not particularly bold assumption that it will happen? 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now as a misleading redirect. There is no information in the target article, and it is too early for there to be any available information. The page can be recreated as its own article when there is information available. However, for now, there is no reason to mislead users into assuming that such information is available as they are redirected to an article to look for it. --Taelus (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this actually has a content before. But the contents have been a subject of contention since it is mostly based on an editor's personal opinion, crystal balling and the lack of any verifiable info (i.e. please refer to the talk page). Because of this, I was initially planning to propose it for deletion, but another user decided to just delete all its contents and use a redirect. Joey80 (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i second Taelus . let one be created when it happen's & this happening is too far & this redirect is misleading .
  • Keep - There is edit history and redirecting away is a cheap way to deal with such premature info and the redirect can easily be reverted or expanded once there is new reliable information, which will probably be before the event itself. While the redirect leads to target with no info that somehow conveys the current consensus to not yet have a separate article. It remains a valid search term. A redlink on the other hand may perceived as gap and may merely encourage further premature post. Which would bring us to the same question again.--Tikiwont (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Miss International 1982[edit]

The result of the discussion was kept. Killiondude (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "Miss International 1982" page. The redirect goes to the person, the winner of the said event but the "Christie Claridge" article does not contain extensive info about the event. The "Miss International 1982" is currently linked via the "Miss International" template. However, no attempt has been currently made to write about the actual event since by looking at the template (and the fact that the link is colored blue instead of red when the article is non-existing), one might be led to the assumption that the 1982 article is already in existence and complete. Joey80 (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as she is Miss Int'l '82 and thus what you would look for when typing it in, for most people. (The winner, not the competition is what most people want) 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "The winner, not the competition is what most people want". Really? Is there a basis for this assumption? I don't like to compare, but you think it will be better if we just delete all the edition articles and then directly link these to the winners? So beyond the beauty pageant, you would like the search for "Eurovision 2008" to go directly to the winner instead of the event? Then if that is the case, then you should have typed "Eurovision 2008 winner". So in this case, the one that should link to the winner is "Miss International 1982 winner". Even though she is Miss International 1982, there is a Miss International 1982 event. And in case you're not aware, that event being held is actually the reason why she is Miss International 1982. Joey80 (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever tried something called Google? IT does wonders in seeing what people think of as "Miss France 1998", for example [2] or how about "Miss Russia 2005"? [3] - this is the way people write things. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a disambiguation link to the top of the target article. I'll be bold and do this in advance, if this closes as delete please could the closing admin also revert my disambig from redirect, thank you. --Taelus (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an alternative to nominating, one can Surely, it will be easier to create another of those unsourced stubs that seem to characterize our coverage of this topic, than to discuss the redirect? --Tikiwont (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which I did (together with undoing the change at the target), so as far as i'm concerned this is mostly moot as the starting point was whether this stands in the way of an article. I understand the question whether the title should lead to the contest or the winner, but that is a general one for all in this series and would IMO need more discussion and also might affect the current naming for other pageants. At least we would need an alternative title for the events. The analogy to Eurovision is misleading, as it is only the 'Miss' part that makes this a possible direct link to the person, which is fine in any case as placeholder as long as the winners have an article.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with a stub as long as it is beneficial to the encyclopedia, which this article possibly is. Whilst it is debatable as to whether we should merge all the year articles into a list, that is an issue for AfD rather than RfD, so for now I suggest closing this nomination with no prejudice against it being taken to AfD. --Taelus (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as may have transpired, I'm having doubts about these articles, as well. Nevertheless, AfD is not really for merging discussions. Unless, of course, someone wants to nominate the whole pageant. In any case there are already List of Miss International editions and List of Miss International titleholders.--Tikiwont (talk) 04:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ivan Grabovac[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 08:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion. No mention on article to explain why redirect exists, Google search couldn't confirm Boleyn2 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I proposed this to Boleyn earlier, after we had a disagreement on the content. This is a personal name that doesn't actually seem to be reliably attributable to Ante Gotovina. His alias is reportedly "Andrija Grabovac", not Ivan. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading redirect, no content on the topic available in the target article. --Taelus (talk) 13:09, 9 November 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_November_8&oldid=1047171755"