Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 30, 2010

Crazy golf[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy keep. I'm going to be bold and non-admin close this per WP:SNOW, as a quick check shows that the comments below are entirely correct that "crazy golf" is a relatively common and entirely non-pejorative term for mini-golf.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, possible vandal redirect December21st2012Freak Talk to me at ≈ 17:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Believe it or not, that's what Brits really call it - in fact I heard a UKer use the term in conversation just a couple weeks ago. It does sound very odd to the USian ear. Stan (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, as mentioned in the lead section of the target article, "Crazy Golf" is an alternative name for this, mostly in Europe I believe, or at least in the United Kingdom. A quick search of Google with the terms "UK" or "Europe" added onto the end also reveal several websites discussing such courses through-out Europe, often with the term "Mini-golf" in brackets, and I even found a couple of companies which manufacture parts for the creation of crazy golf courses, which look identical to mini-golf courses. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.


Pachaurigate[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per WP:BLP. Vsmith (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not have any relationship to target article. Pointy. Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - agree with the points above. Thepm (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reconsider after my post above? This is just a redirect, and it's sourced in one of the most popular Newspaper blogs in the UK. It can even be seen as a WP:RS per this policy "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.". Delingpoles Telegraph blog is such a kind of blog (this is the third time I mention this for the proposer …). Nsaa (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous. Delingpole is a fully-fledged denier of science, and cannot be considered a reliable source on anything other than the skeptical nonsense he spouts. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my view remains that it should be deleted. It seems a little mischievous to me. If it does stay, it certainly shouldn't redirect to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, it should probably redirect to Pachauri's Bio.Thepm (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is getting silly. How many more ridiculous '-gate' redirects are there? SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I haven't seen this referred to anywhere else - the glaciergate term has been far more widespreadly used. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's now redirected to Rajendra K. Pachauri which is the proper article to link it to. I see that many want it deleted, but we have a WP:RS source using it at After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate. Nsaa (talk) 11:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've turned it into a non-neutral attack on a living person - a WP:BLP violation. Stupid redirect becomes malicious redirect, which is grounds for speedy deletion. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok nominate it then for speedy deletion. I strongly disagree with you. I've quoted a WP:RS and WP:V source (per [1]), I've not included it into the article. I've only redirected people who search for this term to the correct article. Nsaa (talk) 12:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? Everyone voted delete except for you. On that basis you redirect? I'm not a regular here, but I'm sure there must some WP:?? thing that applies. You've shown very poor form imo. Thepm (talk)
I'll add here that your source doesn't actually use the term. It's only used in the headline and that appears to be for effect. Thepm (talk) 13:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just removed the wrong redirect and added what I (and you? "it should probably redirect to Pachauri's Bio.Thepm (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC") assume is the correct one). I've not ended this discussion. This should be done by an independent administrator as far as I see. Nsaa (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Amazongate[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does not have any relationship to target article. Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC) *Comment - Sounds like a pun on Watergate. Judging by the google hits, it's quite common (along with glaciergate, climategate) but it's generally referring to climate change or something. I'm not sure yet... Lord Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect I've seen this term used several times and in several different places. It should probably redirect to the IPCC, but I'm not sure if someone has managed to put this into the IPCC or AR4 article yet. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody disagree that it was not an correct redirect. It's now redirected to the proper place IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report. Nsaa (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while the target mentions "Climategate", there is no mention of "Amazongate" in neither the original target article nor the new one to give the term context. Unless it is included in a sourced, neutral fashion in the target article, the term "Amazongate" should not have its own redirect as it would be confusing to those who are not fully aware of the term. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Glaciergate[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. The term has no relationship with the target article (it refers to something else) and it was obviously created to make a point. Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with grundle I considered writing up the article myself, there is actually a surprising amount of well-sourced material out there and it would fall in line with similar articles like the hockey stick controversy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect agree with [[User:Nsaa|Nsaa] above. I don't think it warrants an article of its own. It gets a mention in the AR4 articleThepm (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete completely unrelated. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 02:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody disagree that it was not an correct redirect. It's now redirected to the proper place IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report. Nsaa (talk) 11:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while the target mentions "Climategate", there is no mention of "Glaciergate" in neither the original target article nor the new one to give the term context. Unless it is included in a sourced, neutral fashion in the target article, the term "Glaciergate" should not have its own redirect as it would be confusing to those who are not fully aware of the term. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate Article - although related to Climategate, this is an entirely different subject that has received wide coverage by multiple, reliable media sources and should have its own article. Calltech (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Introduced to make a point. NickCT (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google news shows 200+ hits for "Glaciergate" in the past 24 hours. While I understand that wikipedia is not news, it appears that this term is gaining currency and it's reasonable to keep it as a redirect. A user that enters the term "Glaciergate" should probably be redirected to the appropriate part of Criticism of the IPCC AR4. Thepm (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost all of the Google News hits for this term are from blogs. Also, counting Google hits is never a particularly good way of establishing notability. Besides, this violates WP:WTA (as with all other "-gate" terms). -- Scjessey (talk) 12:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that your first point would be relevant even if it were correct. Following are some recently published articles that use the term "Glaciergate." [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] There are plenty more, just in the last 24 hours. Google says there are 185 hits in the last 24 hours, which probably means there's more than 6 anyway :) It's not relevant whether the sources are reliable or their arguments are well constructed. The point is that the term is appearing regularly. If someone reads it and doesn't know what it means, I want them to be able to type the term in here and be redirected somewhere sensible. Thepm (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Plymouth Suburban[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 Converted to Article --Taelus (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a complaint at Ticket:2010012810039261 that, to put it in our terms, the article about the redirect target Plymouth Fury has nothing to do with the apparently different car "Plymouth Suburban". Since the target article does not seem to discuss the "Plymouth Suburban" at all, I recommend that the redirect be deleted. Of course, I know nothing about cars, so this could be completely wrong.  Sandstein  14:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • This should be an actual article for the vehicle Plymouth produced from 1949 to 1978. It was one of the first all steel framed station wagons produced, leadng to the demise of the true woodies. It does seem that there were Plymouth Fury Suburban station wagons produced from 1968 until 1978, making this a valid redirect. I can't think of a better target, so this should probably stay. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Attention seekers"[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 Speedy delete per CSD G7: Creator requests deletion, CSD R3: Implausible, recently created redirect. --Taelus (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are simple blunders. I unintentionally set up these redirect pages to mistakenly include quotes in their name. I have now set up correct redirects without quotes so this is an entirely non-controversial delete. Penbat (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, I have tagged all four with {{rfd}} tags, and have nominated all four for speedy deletion under db-g7, creator requests deletion. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:21, 31 January 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_January_30&oldid=1148047988"