Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 30, 2009

Ashley surname[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion of both as neither actually are surnames. The former is referring to the singer's stagename while the latter is presumably emphasizing that "Lee" is not a given name. This latter, unfortunately, has history in need of merger. ToET 23:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speights (surname)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. Killiondude (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-needed redirect due to the implausible disambiguation Tavix |  Talk  01:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - an unnecessary redirect that leads to a too-narrow target. Were there more notable Speightses appearing on Wikipedia, I'd suggest expansion into a list/dab page, but a quick search indicates that this would not be appropriate. —Zach425 talk/contribs 17:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral - I'll leave this up to the good people of WikiProject Anthroponymy to decide. Hopefully we'll get input from more of them following Ceyockey's posting at the project's talk page. —Zach425 talk/contribs 06:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep – redirect not intended for disambiguation but as a part of the Anthroponymy WikiProject to provide a surname handle (appearing in Category:Surnames). Perfectly reasonable to delete if one considers the utility to surname / name content of Wikipedia to be of sufficiently low priority to support elimination of handles such as this (a matter of opinion). Speights would have been redirected to the biographical article but for it's correct and proper redirection to Speight's. From a navigational point-of-view, a hatnote on Speight's would serve the purpose of the redirect; however, such a hatnote would not provide representation in Category:Surnames. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 23:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for further consideration as Ceyockey, the creator, had not been notified until yesterday. -- ToET 00:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These three should be considered at the same time, and I look forward to input from WikiProject Anthroponymy. Note that the related redirects Nowitzki and Talaska target their respective articles, but Chuk is a dab page (which may be an issue for categorization). ToET 00:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - I'm no Athroponymian, but I don't like these non-intuitive redirects. --JaGatalk 21:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Reasons for deleting #9 discourages "placeholder" redirects to articles that do not address the topic, and redirects from the general to the particular are generally confusing and misleading. (This could be thought of as the reverse of an {{R from member}} or {{R with possibilities}}.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Ningauble's reasoning (barring last-minute Athroponymian advice).-- ToET 04:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

A.J. Almasi and 83 other redirects from apparently non-notable models[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. –xenotalk 02:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this along with 83 other similar redirects to "Deal or No Deal (US) models". They should be returned to their redlinked glory. –xenotalk 17:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. Nom's comment about redlinking is interesting since he/she has also nominated the target for deletion (discussion seems to be pointing toward keeping at this time). Wikilinks to the redirects can be removed to avoid self-redirection. Redlinks would be appropriate only in cases in which it is likely for a valid standalone article to be written in the foreseeable future, and this would not be the case for most of the individuals of this group. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    So wouldn't that lend more weight to the idea that these models are indeed on their way to notability? What with their prestigious position as a Deal or No Deal Model? The beauty of redlinks is they automatically turn blue if an article is created in their stead. Delinking doesn't have the same benefit. But if you're volunteering, please go ahead. –xenotalk 01:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but WP:SOFIXIT is not a valid point either for keeping or deleting. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Deal or No Deal (US) models clearly have demonstrated meeting the notability bar of WP:CORP independently of the television shows, and adding redlinks would be a type of crystal balling as that would assume that every one of the named models will achieve notability separate from the collective. The better alternative would be to keep the redirects to the target article. In this case, the lack of a separate article (the redirect itself) will alert anybody doing a search on the model (and, in some cases, model-actress) that an article is needed if she has attained WP:BIO notability. Regarding xeno's point regarding redlinks: they should be used only when a standalone article for the individual is inevitable. For most of the 84 named models, I cannot see far enough into the future to ascertain if that will be the case. Delinking would be best for now. B.Wind (talk) 05:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Richard Osborn[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Any further edits to the page may be done as a normal editorial action — Gavia immer (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I don't see any reference to this name in the Henry Miller article. Maybe I am obtuse, but I cannot understand the purpose of this redirect at all. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add to the article. Richard Osborne was a flatmate of Miller and a significant figure in his life. Their relationship is documented in Henry Miller: A Life by Robert Ferguson. Osborne was played by Kevin Spacey in the film Henry & June. Osborn was referred to in an early version of this page. This redirect has several hits each month. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ... But change it from a redirect to an article. If he was significant this should be no problem--Thorseth (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not sure that he was independently notable but certainly significant enough to get a mention in the target which requires a lower threshold. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Henry & June and incorporate mention of character in the article of the movie. Richard Osborn (the character) is a more significant part of the motion picture than Richard Osborn (the roommate) was in real life. The mention of Osborn was correctly removed from the Henry Miller article as he was not significant enough (he won't have an article unless he meets WP:BIO independent from Miller, for notability is not inherited). The proper place for mention of Osborne is in the film, and the redirect should point there. B.Wind (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whether the content was rightly removed from the target is for the article editors to decide. Certainly there is no argument for deletion of this redirect. However, it is clear that Osborn was a significant figure in Miller's life. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Drag Strip[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 kept as retargeted. It's been eight days since it was retargeted without objection (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to dragstrip. After Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drag Strip resulted in a consensus that the article content was unneeded, the closing admin decided to redirect the article to a target that was not discussed in the AfD. A Deletion Review was inconclusive on whether the new target was correct, so I'm opening this RfD. My contention is that "Drag Strip" should redirect to the same place as its uncapitalized counterpart, Drag strip, and that target is dragstrip. Powers T 12:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redir to Transformers character. There should be no issue with different capitalizations going to different places when appropriate. (note: closer of AfD) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as retargeted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proper noun "Drag Strip" is a fictional character with pleanty of links for his entry on the Stunticons page. The common noun "dragstrip" is served by it's own page and spelling just fine. Mathewignash (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify as "dragstrip" is often spelled as two words; furthermore, the hatnote on the dragstrip article is a bit misleading as it implies that Drag Strip is a separate article, and hatnotes should never point to redirects. A disambiguation page can be used to put the character's name in context before the reader sees an anticipated article that is an overview of various Transformers characters. Clearly Drag strip and Drag Strip should point to the same destination... or, at least the same destination choices. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Struck after B.Wind's retargeting. Now it seems to comply with WP:PRECISION. Keep as retargeted. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was clear that they should point to the same location, we wouldn't have a case-sensitive Wikipedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is something called "alternate capitalisation," something that a good number of Wikipedia editors use unintentionally and a few do intentionally. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason the dragstrip article has a note to Drag Strip the character is because until recently Drag Strip had a full article, until it was deleted as the result of an anti-Transformers character article campaign. It used to have a sizeable article about a fiction villian named Drag Strip. Mathewignash (talk) 20:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the hatnote on dragstrip so that it does not point to a redirect. B.Wind (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wearing the lemon[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Connection of the phrase "wearing the lemon" is so tangential to the target (an academic paper which mentions someone spraying lemon juice on their face) that it's hard to imagine anyone typing in that phrase to get to the article. Phrase is not notable. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: redirect was to Dunning–Kruger effect which has just been merged into Illusory superiority. I don't think there's a justification for this redirect to either the old or the new article. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. as too obscure a phrase and one which is not mentioned in the article. For those interested, the anecdote which led to this phrase is mentioned here. It was not in the targeted article at the time of redirect creation, and I've not seen sign that it ever was included. -- ToET 10:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per MartinPoulter. --JaGatalk 22:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Red Car Wire[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article about the band (Red Car Wire) was recently redirected to a compilation album on which the band feature as a results of an AfD. I see little logic in this, as the compilation album article fails to even mention the band. The compilation album article will never provide any information about the band and it seems illogical to redirect in this way. If the band is not notable enough for an article, there is no need to find loosely related articles to which to redirect the article. Just delete it! Nouse4aname (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - after tagging the Red Car Wire (EP) article for speedy deletion, I see no plausible target for this redirect. Current title lists various compilation albums without mentioning the band; only two in the list have bluelinks, and they lead to articles that don't contain "Red Car Wire", either. In fact, there is no other appearance of "Red Car Wire" in userspace, according to the search results. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:28, 30 September 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_September_30&oldid=1140201183"