Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 19, 2010

TUNA4[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 Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This has been around for two years or so, and I have no idea what it signifies. It may be someone's online handle; Google doesn't tell much of a story. Needless to say, it is not mentioned in the target.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - lack of mention in target means that the redirect has no context. I tend to agree with Glenfarclas: it appears to be someone's "tag" of a username. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

ParserFunctions[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 Delete - Sometimes a soft redirect is just inconvenient. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A cross-namespace redirect (really, a cross-wiki link) in an unconvincing disguise. Mediawiki's ParserFunctions are not discussed anywhere in the target apart from an ugly hatnote. Note that without this redirect, the top two search results are Help:ParserFunctions and Wikipedia:ParserFunctions, so there isn't any need to help the search function along. Our readers shouldn't be subjected to this sort of ugly hatnote simply for the convenience of some editors - but especially so when it's not actually any more convenient. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either make an unapologetic cross namespace direct, delete the hat note or both. Rich Farmbrough, 19:34, 24 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Note: does get >100 hits per month. Rich Farmbrough, 19:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
More or less same applies to Parser Functions, but with a little less prejudice to non-camel case. Rich Farmbrough, 19:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not sure how I missed that one, but I'll add it to the nomination. I agree that they should be considered together. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rama XII[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 Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be implying that this man, who is a former prime minister of Thailand, is going to be the king. No evidence is presented for such an assumption, this may be a hoax or some sort of backhanded insult, I'm not sure, but it is inaccurate and misleading. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Portal:Iowa[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 Delete. Currently a misleading redirect, and as pointed out the preferable solution is to create the portal. I'll give someone a barnstar if they can create a worthwhile one in the next week or two. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This redirect creates the impression that a portal for the State of Iowa exists. This may discourage creation of an Iowa portal. Buaidh (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete CSD P1 or P2. The portal does not exist, and a redirect is not an article. This is a case in which if an admin declines P1/P2, he/she can still delete this under either R3 or G6. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This redirect was created as a stopgap because hundreds of pages linked to the Iowa portal, which was previously a dead link. As a redirect, it at least guides readers to an index that covers much of the info they would get from a true portal. Attempts to get someone to create a proper portal at Wikiproject Iowa proved unsucessful (see its discussion page); it appears that like me, no one has the time or energy to create a portal. If this redirect is killed, it means that hundreds of links in WP will turn red, and our poor readers will be denied a simple link to the information they want. Bill Whittaker (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they would be guided (by the search engine) to a list of Portal pages mentioning Iowa; furthermore, if such a list is not desirable, they can simply enter "Iowa" to start their search anyway. This redirect is essentially a "bait-and-switch": there is no Iowa portal, but the redirect implies that there is one. A redlink would encourage the creation of one if there is someone with the willpower (and the time) to create one; a bluelink would discourage that. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, you believe it is preferable to have hundreds of red links leading to a frustrating "search results" page than a simple link to the Outline of Iowa, which is full of topics relating to Iowa? I think it is fair to assume that someone who clicks on the Iowa Portal would prefer a well-oranized list of Iowa-related articles. Bill Whittaker (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think it's preferable to have an actual Iowa portal than to deceive a reader by creating "placeholders" for one that doesn't exist. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, make one. Until then, please don't destroy a very useful redirect. Bill Whittaker (talk) 12:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bill CTJF83 chat 20:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Outline of Iowa to portal space, which is where these "outline" pages should be anyway. Yeah, I know it won't happen as a result of this RfD, but that's what should happen, and it would fix the problem here, so I nonetheless suggest doing exactly this. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would a speedy move satisfy everyone? CTJF83 chat 21:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the Iowa portal cannot be created, delete redirect as there is no Iowa portal, and a redirect implying otherwise is Not a Good Thing (see WP:RFD#DELETE). Of course, the easiest (and the most legitimate) way to reconcile this situation is to create the portal at the name of the redirect. I think Gavia's suggestion is an excellent first step (as long as it meets Wikipedia guidelines for portals). Regarding Bill's question to the IP: why not simply copy that list of links onto WP:IA, a.k.a. WP:WikiProject Iowa, or a subpage thereof, in the interim? Links to it can be placed in the appropriate "See also" sections of selected Iowa articles. B.Wind (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replace or delete all links here. Rich Farmbrough, 19:50, 24 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
On second thoughts Delete and let the red links do what they should. Anyone can, of course, create a stub-portal (per Gavia above, or otherwise), at any time. Rich Farmbrough, 19:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Prof Jeremy Shum[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 both speedied by User:Rich Farmbrough per R3 (non-admin closure). Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Shum is some sort of non-notable online guy whose article has been deleted five times (plus, apparently, once as Jeremy Shum (Radio Presenter), assuming that was supposed to be the same guy). I highly doubt he's a doctor or a professor, and he has no discernible connection to Selena Gomez. Please see my other RfD for Jeremy Shum below on April 18.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mannoge[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 Keep or no consensus, whichever you prefer. Only thing around using the name, so it's perfectly reasonable; as noted, WP:N or WP:V aren't required for a redirect, just usefulness. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any use of this as a shortened name in the article or otherwise synonymous with the redirect target. Especially true here because this is the first name. (I converted it to a redirect b/c that was what was intended by the creator) Shadowjams (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No evidence he's known by just his first name. (And not much evidence he's "known" at all.)  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also, seems likely to me the targeted page will end up deleted (although that's not necessarily germane to the discussion here). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 07:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are for aiding navigation, there is no notability standard for them. If the article ends up deleted then it would of course be a target for speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless. Rich Farmbrough, 19:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rajanan[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 Keep See above section. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any use of this as a shortened name in the article or otherwise synonymous with the redirect target (I converted it to a redirect b/c that was what was intended by the creator) Shadowjams (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No evidence he's known by just his last name. (And not much evidence he's "known" at all.)  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The idea of a redirect is to help users find content they are looking for. There is no need to prove he is known by this name. If this helps even one user find the article then it has served it's purpose. Deletion s for redirects that are fundamentally flawed, which this is not. It's fairly common to redirect possible alternate names to an article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2010 (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/2010_April_19&oldid=1148047724"