Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 31, 2010

FC Beringen[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. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This redirects to a dissolved football club in Belgium however Belgium isn't the only country with a town called Beringen. Switzerland does and they have their own FC Beringen and having this link makes it confusing per WP:RFD#DELETE reason #10. Thanks -- Spartan008 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I considered this but for a disambiguation page we need at least two football clubs with the same name that have a claim to notability, and at least one with an article. At present, we have only one, and that one doesn't have a page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gilbert and Sullivan Society[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am concerned that this redirect (and its partner Gilbert and Sullivan Societies) are just being used as a 'filler' without substantive content. The target paragraph - within an article, note - does not contain any content relating to the redirect subject. The redirect could be usefully removed, and replaced (eventually) with a brief article on the nature of 'Gilbert and Sullivan Societies'. As is, it is merely misleading - see WP:RFD#DELETE reason #10. I am listing here, as simple {{PROD}} appears contentious. Thanks Kbthompson (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • It does not contain any mention because my opponent dishonestly deletes my multi-referenced addition from this section; see my vote below. 21:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorem Ip (talk • contribs)
  • Keep both and refine target to Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan#Effect on amateur theatre. The target seems useful enough for a redirect. If the nominator wishes there to be a standalone article then one way is to write one. Alternatively, the present section can simply be left to grow organically until it is substantial enough for a breakout. I would add, in passing, that redirects can not be prodded. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These links are confusing and not helpful. There is a small organization called "The Gilbert and Sullivan Society" in London. This is a Gilbert and Sullivan appreciation society. There are also various other appreciation societies in other cities. The members of the Gilbert and Sullivan Project have not felt that an article about this organization or any of the similar organizations is needed, but if such an article is ever written, this redirect will be in the way. In addition, there are numerous performing groups around the world that perform the works of Gilbert and Sullivan. These are often called "x Gilbert and Sullivan Society". For example, "Seattle Gilbert and Sullivan Society". Most of these groups are non-notable amateur and school performing groups. Moreover, the article to which these redirects point is not substantially about any of these topics. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As has al ready been noted, it's darn confusing, and most of these "societies" are not even close to being notable. Smatprt (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the argument put forward by Ssilvers above. Unnecessary redirects. Jack1956 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I notice that there has been an edit war between User:Lorem Ip and Ssilvers - see User talk:Lorem Ip, for example. I have proposed some compromise wording. As a factual point, if a standalone page is to be written, it is not correct that "this redirect will be in the way" since the article can simply be written over the redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bridgeplayer: you seem confused. First, the dispute was between me and Lorem [name corrected now, see below]. Second, look at guideline #10 above regarding removal of redirects. It says that a redlink to the proposed article would be better than a redirect to the wrong subject. More importantly, however, the consensus of editors has been that there is no proposed article. We do not think there is a notable topic there. The problem is that this redirect is not pointing to anything useful. No one looking for the Gilbert and Sullivan Society wants to go to an article on cultural influcences of Gilbert and Sullivan. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request - Bridgeplayer - can you delete or strike out your comment about an edit war involving myself and Lorem? I have had absolutely no interaction with Lorem. Thanks Smatprt (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - user name now corrected; I apologise for the error. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree, on reflection. There is a need in the target for reference to G&S societies as a concept but that differs from a specific, upper case, Gilbert and Sullivan Society. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The crucial points are that A) The current target of the RDR makes no sense; and B) There is no existing or likely Wikipedia content where it could go. Marc Shepherd (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current target makes no sense because my opponent dishonestly deletes my multi-referenced addition from this section; see my vote below. Lorem Ip (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and reprimand the dishones behavior of my opponent. My opponent keeps deleting any mention of the term "Gilbert and Sullivan Society" fom the target article, which of course makes me look like idiot with my redirect.
If you google for the term "Gilbert and Sullivan Society", you will find thousands of hit. If you google "Gilbert and Sullivan Societies", you will find 20,000 hits, indicating that these societies is visible part of the Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan, although individually they may not be all notable. I have to relation to theatre topic, I am a computer scientist, and I became curious when G&SS was mentioned in the article about Mark Zbikowski. I had no idea what these society are, and my opponent makes every possible effort to impose this kind of non-knowledge in wikipedia. Lorem Ip (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - we cannot resolve complaints about users in this project. Looking at the edits concerned, I suggest that you think very carefully before making further representations. However, if you wish to pursue matters then go thisaway. On the issue of this RFD, before this redirect has a chance of being kept then you will need to get your edit to stick. In order to do that you will need to get agreement on the talk page, which looks highly unlikely. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <sigh> Yes, I see it unlikely and see this utterly ridiculous. I guess I have to resort to other avenues to deal with this weird opinion that Gilbert and Sullivan societies are not part of the cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to WP:RFD#DELETE #10. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This point #10 is a good idea, except that my opponent laborously deletes redlinks I create as well. I fail to understand this obsession against G&SS. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is there now is a recipe for confusion and would be unhelpful to users - positively baffling indeed, and would risk damaging users' confidence in Wikipedia. - Tim riley (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This confusion is the result of actions of Ssilvers, not mine. Lorem Ip (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete redirects are confusing. Broadwaygal (talk) 14:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Public policy (disambiguation)[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 retarget to Policy (disambiguation). NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; target is not a disambiguation page. R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation page - the target was a disamb page when the redirect was created. However, such a page would be useful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be better to redirect to Policy, which is now a disambiguation page, in that case. If there's no objection, I'll just be bold and do it in a day or two. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Holly Hester[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 due to misleading/confusion. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless and misleading redirect - The target contains a single mention of Holly Hester that fails to establish notability of the individual or provide useful encyclopaedic data. However, there are other articles that mention a Holly Hester who may not be the one referred to, making this redirect misleading. It would seem prudent to delete this redirect to avoid any confusion. AussieLegend (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—potentially confusing, the person mentioned in the Letterman article is hardly notable. A WP:DAB page would be a possibility if there were any persons by this name sufficiently notable enough to justify it. –Grondemar 15:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - there is a writer by this name who looks notable. Deletion would make it harder to find the mention of this person which is of no benefit; I would add that someone does not have to be notable for a redirect; indeed if they are notable then they would get their own page! Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment there is no place to find information on the writer. I don't see how deleting the redirect would make it harder to find information that does exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to the individual mentioned in the David Letterman page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as subject isn't notable; also frees up the title if someone wants to make an article on the writer. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If she is mentioned in the article, then she should have a redirect to that article. If she was notable she would have her own article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've missed the point that there are "two" Holly Hesters, one a writer and one a CBS staffer, who may or may not be the same person (we have no idea), which makes this redirect misleading. I'm mentioned in at least one Wikipedia article but creating a redirect to "my" article would be misleading as there are at least four other people with my name also mentioned in articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:39, 5 September 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_August_31&oldid=616127516"