Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2010

Super Bowl redirects[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 all bar Super Bowl L. --Taelus (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl MMLI Super Bowl MMLIX Redirects for far-future Super Bowls that don't even have a date or location announced yet. In the case of Super Bowl M, it would be very far in the future indeed. Per WP:CRYSTAL, such things are discouraged - we don't have any information on these future Super Bowls at all, so the blue-linked redirects are just confusing, and they might cause readers to assume that the information is somewhere in the target, or ought to be, when it is not. I have no objection to replacing these with an article, along the lines of Super Bowl XLVI, when reliable information becomes available - which will not be for a long time yet. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — Gavia immer (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request Could you list all the redirects you are nominating please. You've only linked one and yet your statement discusses several. Thanks. Thryduulf (talk)
    Sure, if I don't get edit-conflicted while posting the full list ... — Gavia immer (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, we get the point. Let's assume it applies to any Super Bowl with a number of L or higher. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be the full list, in fact, but see for yourself at Special:Prefixindex/Super Bowl L — Gavia immer (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Adding Super Bowl C (to be held in 2066) to the list. Oh... Delete all. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for adding that list, delete all with no prejudice to recreation as an article when reliable information becomes available (not that I expect this discussion to hold much weight anyway by the time Super Bowl M comes around). Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all the closest is 6 years away, the farthest is scheduled for 2966. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, though at least some usable information of Super Bowl L will likely be available in a couple years, no prejudice against recreation when such info is available. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep through LX I created a few myself after searching for Super Bowl L 3 years ago to see if they had a site, tv network, etc. At that point the game was still 9 years away. I think it is entirely appropriate for these to redirect users back to the Super Bowl article; the fact that they "don't even have a date or location announced yet" is EXACTLY why they redirect back to the article.
    Let me put it this way. If these were articles, and they went to AfD, they'd end up as redirects. As a matter of fact, That already happened: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Bowl L--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 01:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not unheard of for articles that were redirected without merging at AfD (usually because they contained no useful page history or content, and it's easier to compromise on "redirect" than "delete") to be eventually deleted as unnecessary redirects at RfD. It is not a common occurrence, but it has happened before, and there is certainly no rule against it. –Black Falcon (talk) 09:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least we should be keeping Super Bowl L, which was viewed over 1500 times last year. Surely that means I'm not the only one who finds these redirects useful.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as redirects that direct readers searching for information about a particular topic to a general article that contains no information specific to that topic: the target article does not mention (nor should it at this time) any of these future Super Bowls. Maybe keep Super Bowl L, which is in {{SuperBowl}}. –Black Falcon (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep redirects to the say three immediate future games and delete the rest. Simply south (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except ones in template. Why in the world would people be searching for Super Bowl M? I'd say keep the ones in templates, so as to not mess them up, but for the others, delete them, and recreate in, oh say, 50 years. Buggie111 (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shyam Sunderji Surolia[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#R3 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - product of a quickly self-reverted pagemove to an incorrect name. The name "Shyam Sunderji Surolia" garners the Golden Doughnut Award for having zero Google hits. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete r3, which I've tagged it for. If that's declined for some reason, then delete per nom.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Madduck[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page was created as a redirect to Martin Krafft, which itself was first made a redirect to The Debian System and later deleted per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 6#Martin Krafft. User:Madduck proposed the page for deletion with the comment, "I am not a book." In the previous RfD Madduck said that his name should not redirect to his book. I presume the same argument holds for his nickname. Cnilep (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirecting the name of a non-notable author to the article about a notable book they've written is not uncommon as a plausible search term, but if the author does not want this then I see no reason to insist on it. I don't see that the author's nickname as a likely search term for people wanting to find out about the book, as even though it is mentioned [1] these are only incidental mentions. That the author apparently does not want the redirect just reinforces my opinion that Wikipedia doesn't need this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no mention of this term in the target; nor does the target indicate any apparent relation to this term. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. From what I can tell, this is a common enough nickname for the author. The reasons to delete are pretty bad here: "I am not a book" is true, but No Limitations is not a band, a Musical production is not a record producer, and Fay Ray was a dog, not a photographer. Also, I smell sour grapes about the deletion of Krafft's own article. If this redirected to, say, an article about a crime, or a different person, or a company he no longer works for, then I could understand honoring the subject's wish to delete, but it redirects to his own book. Wait, is that the world's smallest violin I hear playing?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say that the author's nickname is a much less likely search term than his real name, and the redirect from the latter was deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I wound up with a "weak" keep out of a nod to stare decisis. But from a purely practical standpoint, just because a bad decision was made on Martin Krafft is no reason to make a bad decision on Madduck.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Polish anarchy[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget to Anarchism in Poland. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real, or at least not notable phrase indicating this concept. Unverified at least. Urpunkt☎ 02:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This gets around a dozen hits a month, and should probably be targeted somewhere. See this book result, with a chapter titled "The So-Called Polish Anarchy." There's also this article, discussing "the harmony threatened by 'Polish anarchy'." Ideally, someone with a better knowledge of Polish history than I have would know where this term should point.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If I use my own knowledge as a guide --this is exactly the term I would look for. DGG ( talk ) 04:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There exists a stub Anarchy in Poland (1032 – 1038) as well as a page on Anarchism in Poland. Could some users entering this term Polish Anarchy rather be looking for information concerning those topics? Urpunkt☎ 21:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and list at WP:WikiProject Poland and WP:Requested articles as (per First Partition of Poland) it was the pretense for the sequence of events that precipitated the sequence of events that erased Poland from world maps in the late 18th Century. A standalone article would be best, not a redirect, and I am not sure that a dab page would be appropriate under WP:Disambiguation. B.Wind (talk) 16:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too many possibilities for a target subject, but the current articles generally are not valid targets for a possible dab page. I see no common thread amongst all the potential targets for a disambiguation that can hold together. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Anarchism in Poland for now. I agree that the target, and related articles, need a thorough going reworking but that is outside the scope of this review. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - As above. Most relevant target. More-or-less a rewording of it, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/[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 No Consensus. The argument is over whether this is plausible, or not. Some see it as plausible, whilst others don't. I doubt consensus would be gained from relisting. --Taelus (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect (in fact, it may be a test page): very little traffic, no incoming links except those generated by this nomination, no significant page history, and not a likely search term. In the unlikely event that someone searches for the redirect, he or she will be directed to the target page by the drop-down list in the search function or by the Wikipedia search results page, where the target page will be the first result. (Redirect creator notified using Template:RFDNote) –Black Falcon (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only use I can think of for this is that it gets you to the intended page when using the "go up a directory" tool on something like the Google toolbar, when you've been viewing a subpage (directory/page → directory/ is correct, but on wikis you need to do page/subpage → page). There are several subpages of word association, and I recognise the creator as someone who does play word association games so doing this is plausible. However, this is not needed for searching as detailed above and {{Word Association}} provides a quick link to the target anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this would be a common way of doing this. Many websites end their sites with / so it would be just as common to assume that here. Simply south (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic we should have a redirect from every page that has subpages from titles ending in /, e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/ and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, the inadvertent addition of a slash to the search item is not as improbable as one would think... but it's not a reason to add intentional typographical errors to our vast collection of redirects. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is probable or improbable in theory is a bit of a moot point, because it is improbably in practice: the target page is viewed ~700 times per month, whereas the redirect receives less than 10 hits per month. In any case, any search for the redirect will bring up the target page as the first result on the search results page and in the drop-down list, so no functionality is gained by keeping it or lost by deleting it. –Black Falcon (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible unintentional typographical error, per my post above. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:57, 8 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_8&oldid=1148048012"