Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 16[edit]

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

Title IX (Athletics)[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect should be deleted. The article originally created at Title IX (Athletics) caused a content fork, is unnecessary, and could be confusing. No other article pages link to this redirect. Updateman (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Usually, redirects resulting from merges are kept for GFDL reasons; in this case, it seems no text was actually merged. However, the old Title IX (Athletics) article still contains useful content that could be merged into this one, and arguably is at least a somewhat plausible search term. This is another case where turning an article into a redirect was a mistake; the original article should probably have been sent to AFD rather than just redirected. I still don't think we should delete it without sending it through AFD. Robofish (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Robofish's reasoning is important, and I think this would be a more common search term than it's being given credit for. The Athletics qualification provides added detail for someone when searching, especially if they're aware that Title IX exists in many other (less frequently used) contexts. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep -- First: for all the history and keeping potentially useful content around reasons above that Robofish has spoken to above. Second: because this is totally plausible search term. Third: This gets a pretty steady stream of traffic with a dozen or hits many days. —mako๛ 04:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an alternative capitalization variant of Title IX (athletics), the more properly disambiguated term. While the bulk of Title IX's enforcement involves funding and participation in athletics, the reach of the law is much broader. B.Wind (talk) 16:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

In Charge[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget to Hot Chick/In Charge. Killiondude (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No relevance whatsoever to the article it redirects to. Xeltran (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, mentioned on target page: 'Two more new tracks from Uffie, "Hot Chick" and "In Charge" were first proliferated through audioblogs in July 2006. Then in November, 2006, they were released together on her EP Hot Chick/In Charge on Ed Banger Records.' Redirecting to Hot Chick/In Charge (EP) would also be possible. Robofish (talk) 22:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the EP, or delete as overly general. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hot Chick/In Charge (EP) as a more obviously relevant target that is less likely to confuse the user.—Zach425 talk/contribs 06:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hot Chick/In Charge (EP) -- As per Zach above. I'm less confused already! —mako๛ 04:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget In Charge and In charge to Command or Responsibility. Most pop music is ephemeral. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if any of the above suggestions for retargeting would be appropriate. In the case of the music EP, this would be a partial name match, and there are quite a few articles with the phrase "XXXX in Charge" (like Charles in Charge, Blackadder in Charge, Priest in Charge, and Man in Charge), but we usually steer clear of disambiguations of partial names (sometimes we don't even agreements on last names!). As far as retargeting of Command and Responsibility is concerned, they are but only two uses and meanings of the phrase, such as oversight and "large and in charge." All things being considered, it would seem to me that deletion is the best option if partial disambiguation is not. Delete. B.Wind (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that partial name dabs are typically to be avoided, this isn't the case when the target is often referred to by the partial name alone. This is the case with Hot Chick/In Charge - 1/4 of the Google hits for "uffie 'in charge'"[1] have no mention of "hot chick"[2]. As for the 'ephemeral' argument, the beauty of Wikipedia is that the term can be re-targeted if & when it appears that there is a more appropriate target. —Zach425 talk/contribs 08:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's a case, however, that a person searching for a phrase would have a bit of a surprise if he/she is looking for something of the form "xxxxxx in charge" (such as a television or radio programme) and winds up with an article on something that has nothing to do with the point of the person's research. I can see the validity of the rationale behind retargeting to the EP article, but in most cases it will add to the frustration of the search and not help the reader. If we can have a partial disambiguation page based on the phrase "in charge" it would be best (then the EP can be linked to it); otherwise it seems that deletion is the only option here. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apart from the song by Uffie, there's also song of this name by Dubstar (mentioned in that article, and in the Shooting Fish article), and another by Marco V. So, even ignoring non-song meanings of the phrase "in charge", it seems clear that this should be a disambiguation page (or a redirect to a disambiguation page at In charge). --Zundark (talk) 10:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Hot Chick/In Charge. (Notice that there's no "(EP)" in the article name anymore.) There's no "In Charge" or "In charge" article, and since the EP contains a such song, it's a logical target for the redirect. Deletion would be wrong, since it's a possible search term and there's an obvious search target. A dab page could be created if there are more than two articles a reader would be looking for, but since all mentions in the other articles (see Zundark's comment above) are in a track list with no mention in the prose, I think a better option is to redirect to the EP. Also, I disagree with Anthony Appleyard that readers are likely to search for command or responsibility with the term "in charge". Jafeluv (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Untitled 2nd Flight of the Conchords studio album[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep Untitled 12th Studio Album (Megadeth), delete others. Jafeluv (talk) 07:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: On closer inspection, Slayer Untitled Album 2009 was merged into World Painted Blood (diff, diff), so deleting it would not preserve the page history of that page and for that reason the redirect has to be kept. I've tagged it with {{R from merge}}. If someone knows a better way to handle the situation, please let me know. Jafeluv (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. This is a list of redirects for albums all containing "untitled" in its name and redirected to titled albums. They were obviously created before the albums' names were known, but that is no longer the case for any of these (even the two that redirect to their artists' page). Searching for "untitled" for a now-titled album does not seem likely. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Delete all for same reasons as stated above. BacktableSpeak to Meabout what I have done 01:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all as implausible redirects, confusing redirects, WP:CBALL, etc. No reason to hold on to any of these. Demi Lovato, Slayer, Morrissey are the only ones with some sort of history, but in each case there appears no reason to keep it. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom & Amory. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for Untitled 12th Studio Album (Megadeth). It gets traffic and that seems like the correct place. The only other redirect that gets serious traffic is Untitled Metallica Album and it seems better to send folks to a search page than to a page on a particular album. The rest get almost no traffic, are potentially confusing or incorrect, should be Deleted. —mako๛ 01:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Roy Eugene Davis[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 that the article was restored by Rich Farmbrough yesterday. Although that points in the direction that consensus was going here, it means that the RFD itself is moot. I've left messages for both the person who blanked the article and for the nominator suggesting they take it an AFD if they feel strongly. (non-admin close) —mako๛ 01:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirects to an article that does not mention Roy Davis. Mannafredo (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. This was an article that was blanked because of lack of sourcing (the ones the article had pointed to publications by Davis himself) in February 2009. Deletion of the redirect (to create redlinks to about six articles wikilinked to this) would be the easy thing to do, but I doubt it's the appropriate thing to do here. Revert to last version of article and take to WP:AfD. Lack of sourcing by independent reliable sources is usually not a reason (alone) to delete; lack of availability of reliable sources (for verification that a person meets WP:BIO) is. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore old article, and send to AFD. I agree with the IP above: this should have been sent to AFD in the first place, rather than redirecting it to a page which didn't mention the subject. Either the article should exist or it shouldn't, but the redirect is unhelpful. Robofish (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore/AFD this version. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-redirect to Paramahansa Yogananda (his mentor) which does mention him -- as the article on the yoga tradition which is his main claim for fame doesn't. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 22:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article, then take to AfD - essentially the recent history of the redirect indicates that AfD is the more appropriate venue. Retargeting is not really an option as there are more than one article mentioning Roy Eugene Davis (side note: should there be a retargeting to any article containing his name, circular links will need to be removed). I don't know if the earlier article on Davis would indicate that he'd pass the WP:BIO notability bar, but this is not the place for deciding that issue.B.Wind (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Citizens on Patrol[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 retargeted to Police Academy 4: Citizens on Patrol. Should anyone wish to write a standalone article on Citizens on Patrol programs, the redirect can be overwritten (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's an incoming link to a dab page which does not mention Citizens on Patrol. Only incoming link was a "See also" in Town watch which I have just removed. PamD (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Goizueta Business School of Emory University Modular Executive MBA Program[edit]

The result of the discussion was move to Emory University Business School. Jafeluv (talk) 11:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term, should be deleted as no one would use that term to find the the school. Tavix |  Talk  03:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - firstly, I am pleased that there is a consensus that deletion is a real bad idea. The question, therefore, is what to do with it? The retarget is, on the face of it, a cool idea. However, the link within the AFD will then be red-linked making a content merge less likely. Consequently, leaving things be remains the simplest and best way forward. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If need be, the closing admin of the AfD can put a postscript indicating a new location for the history until the merge is complete. Until then, no matter how cumbersome the title, the redirect will be needed as-is for GDFL purposes. The history must be kept... somewhere, and the redirect's history seems a bit large to do a histmerge with the current target article. Neutral for now as to the suggestion of immediate retargeting. B.Wind (talk) 16:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Until a histmerge is done, this really should not be deleted. I don't have a strong preference in terms of moving this somewhere else in the wiki or leaving it in place. The search term is unlikely but the potential for harm or confusion seems close to nil. Emory University Business School should probably exist as a redirect in any case. —mako๛ 02:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Naga, Cebu/old redirects[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. Jafeluv (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a self-referencing redirect that makes no sense outside of Wikipedia itself. This is a very unlikely search item. With the same justification, I also nominate:

147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete them all as quickly as possible. It would seem to me that all of these could be speedily deleted (CSD G6) as housekeeping. Some of these have been around for quite some time, but I see no purpose for them, and their existence actually encourage creation more of these. There is no purpose of a (sub)page in articlespace named "redirect." B.Wind (talk) 04:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as unneeded test pages, speedily if necessary. Robofish (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them if you want to. They arise when I am asked to move page A to B, and I see that pagename B has several old redirect edits. I could merely delete B to let A move to B - - but I do not like parallel-history deleted edits sitting under a page's visible (un-deleted) history - - it is too liable to accidents if some time later B must be temporarily deleted for some reason such as history-merging: a risk that I am well aware of, after the amount of history-merging that I have done. So I move the redirect edits to another filename to get them out from under page B's visible edits. I left those ---/redirects pages visible so people can see the history of the old moves and redirections that caused those redirects. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while I can understand the motivation for creating them, they're clunky and confusing. Unless there's compellingly important content in the histories, I expect we'd be safe having the pages simply deleted. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as G6. This seems like technical maintenance. Tavix |  Talk  23:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all -- I've checked them all and none of them seem to have ever contained anything in the history other than redirects text, one way or another. These can go and, named as they are, probably should. —mako๛ 02:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any redirect with "redirect in the name. Hist-merge if any meaningful history. Anyway Delete any redirect with "redirect in the name." --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all both unnecessary and meaningless. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 13:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Top Gear Redirect[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 11:03, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - another self-referencing redirect that makes sense only within a Wikipedia context. Highly unlikely search item. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom. Bob talk 08:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unused unlinked and unnecessary. Self-referencing redirect should be deleted per nom. ShakingSpirittalk 10:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As per the discussions we've been having over the last week or so. This one is no different. —mako๛ 02:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Flag of City of Hammond, Indiana[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is only linked in the Hammond, Indiana infobox, because the infobox detects a flag page exists, it creates a redirect back to the same article. Svgalbertian (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I don't think that's the way it works Interesting, that it works that way. But regardless of how the infobox works: It's an unlikely search term. — Sebastian 18:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no need for this redirect until such an article exists; unlikely search term. Robofish (talk) 22:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- If it's causing problems with the infobox, that's harm enough to get rid of this until the page is created. —mako๛ 02:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Traveler[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 retargeted to Traveler. This could have been boldly done without going through RfD. Because there is very high likelihood of a lack of controversy, I'm closing this. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to lead to a disambiguation page, or the results for Traveler. Clark Kent does not seem to be an appropriate redirect, and there are lots of things The Traveler could reference, including a novel of that exact title. Wedgiey1 (talk) 18:50, 16 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_September_16&oldid=1050030809"