Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 15, 2010

National aquatic animal[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 List of national animals. Jafeluv (talk) 22:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect target is apparently the national aquatic animal of India, but a redirect like this doesn't serve much of a purpose: it doesn't tell that the "national" refers to India and is an unlikely search term. Ucucha 23:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There's a List of national animals and a List of national birds, but no List of national aquatic animals. Since the list of animals are mostly non-aquatic (nevermind the quality of that article) I don't see an appropriate place for this re-direct to point to. –Grondemar 05:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Change to retarget to List of national animals per below, works for me. –Grondemar 16:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose we might retarget it to national animal. Both of those duplicate lists list the "dolphin" as the national marine animal of India, by the way, and their quality is not entirely up to standards. Ucucha 05:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to List of national animals. "National aquatic animal" is not an implausible search term, especially if one knows that India (and/or another country) has one but doesn't know what it is. While the target isn't perfect, it's the best we have and does list the answer. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Chinese restoration of Tibet[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. 16:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Article was incorrectly listed at AfD; original rationale was "This article cannot be attributed to reliable sources. I searched the internet for the phrase "Chinese restoration of Tibet" and the only result was this newly created page. It appears to express to have been created to make a WP:POINT. Bertport (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)"[reply]

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It's a redirect page instead of an article, thus OR principle is barely important here. Invasion of Tibet (1950–1951) is over biased and I don't think I'm capable to change the page's name, that's how comes this redirect page. If User:Bertport finds this page goes against any of 10 reasons for deleting, I'm glad to take it into reconsideration. Meanwhile, Reasons for not deleting could be immediately listed if necessary. Regards.--LaGrandefr (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is ... because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." -- the 5th of 10 reasons for deleting
The redirect is created to balance the over biased title, and it's to instantly replace the present title if someone considers they're synonyms.--LaGrandefr (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." from 10 reasons for deleting applies. Bertport (talk) 23:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 7th of 10 reasons for deleting:
"If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created."
If I interpret correctly this condition, it's for some redirects like black hitler or Palak Abomo to Barack Obama.--LaGrandefr (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero Google hits for "Chinese restoration of Tibet" outside of Wikipedia's deletion discussions. Thus not only is it an improbable search item (in fact, I claim that this is a speedy deletable CSD R3 as an improbable misnomer), it appears to have been coined for the sole purpose of including it in Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with 0 google hits it's not possible to say that this is an appropriate target without OR. Polarpanda (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • “Chinese restoration of Tibet” is English translation of “西藏回归中国” or “中国收复西藏” in Chinese which have respectively 670,000 and 3,240,000 results by google. I suppose all delete proposals above are somewhat groundless now.--LaGrandefr (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: the above is the only occurrence of either “西藏回归中国” or “中国收复西藏” in English Wikipedia; nor has there been an occurrence of the English translation of these two terms in this Wikipedia (I had wondered what was the official PRC term/English translation for the invasion of Tibet, but clearly by searches in Google, Ask, Excite, Dogpile, Yahoo, and AV, it's not the same as the aforementioned redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought English Wikipedia adores translating other languages. For example, both Chinese term “龙眼” and its transltion “dragon eye” are redirected to the article Longan.
PS: The translation of “invasion of Tibet” is “中国入侵西藏”, sometimes mentioned by PRC as a citation, while CTA also talks of “peaceful liberation” from time to time.--LaGrandefr (talk) 09:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The phrase "Chinese restoration of Tibet" appears on exactly three pages in the Internet, according to Google - here, an old edit of the Tibet article, and one Wikipedia user talk page. It is odd that with the increasing Chinese presence on the internet in English (and there are many reliable Chinese sources, both official and not), this phrase does not occur once. Thus I must conclude that this is a newly coined phrase to bolster an editor's political position. (Note that "restoration of Tibet" gets 610,000 hits, mainly from sites reporting the restoration of Tibet's relics, palace, fauna, etc., and from sites advocating the return of Tibetan independence. B.Wind (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

RTÉ CEL (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page that redirects. —  Cargoking  talk  13:34, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not target a disambiguation page, and there's nothing here to disambiguate. Such a title can only lead our readers astray. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since there is no disambiguation necessary, there's no reason for a redirect from this name. –Grondemar 05:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

RTE CEL (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page that redirects. —  Cargoking  talk  13:32, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not target a disambiguation page, and there's nothing here to disambiguate. Note also that this redirect's target is a separate redirect to the above title. Such a title can only lead our readers astray. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since there is no disambiguation necessary, there's no reason for a redirect from this name. –Grondemar 05:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

LongCat[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't mention LongCat, so the redirect is confusing. Delete. Svick (talk) 06:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for same as Svick. —Voidxor (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had no idea what a LongCat is, but it's exactly what I was looking up. Redirect told me it's a 4chan meme. Potatoswatter (talk) 02:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is there a 4chan glossary to retarget to? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable without something at the target to prove it's originally from 4chan. Polarpanda (talk) 15:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in the target article. By the way, this is not even the correct capitalization – longcat has been salted since 2007 after several recreations. Jafeluv (talk) 08:45, 19 February 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_February_15&oldid=1138577252"