Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 7, 2010

Zeus pangeasus[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No google hits for this term, no mention of term in target article. Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Victor Darnell Hadnot[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly created as a placeholder for recreation of article which was speedily deleted yesterday (G11/G12). It redirects to Christian science fiction which does not mention this person. He is an author in this genre, but would be unlikely to meet notability guidelines as he appears to be self-published [1]. Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB - author has since redirected this to African american writers, initially wanted it to redirect to both this and Christian Science fiction [2] (not sure how that would work). I think it should probably be deleted, unlikely many people will be searching for this non-notable author.   pablohablo. 22:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

T:MP[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Kimchi.sg (talk) 12:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This, that and the other (talk · contribs) recreated this, claiming that it "is a high-use redirect to a uniquely located page". But special:whatlinkshere/T:MP says different. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. According to stats.grok, it's viewed somewhat less often than User talk:Cnilep, and I know that's not a high-use page. More seriously, the redirect is unnecessary. Cnilep (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have trouble believing such a cross-namespace redirect is useful, given that the correctly-namespaced WT:MP is only one character longer. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 22:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Shirik. Plus, this shows up on auto-generated article maint lists (how I found it), so it's a PITA (pain in the ass).--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Grandfather of India[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend delete per [3]. This article was a fork, a copyvio, and now a redirect. I think the redirect is very POVish and the target article doesn't have enough sources to merit the redirect. NeilN talk to me 19:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep—the use of the phrase does appear to be sourced. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 19:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Contentious, POV, and not very helpful. — goethean ॐ 19:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep You seem to be missing the point of redirects. A reader might conceivably know the "Grandfather of India" phrase but not who it applied to. The redirect would get them to the correct article. The fact that it has had a contentious edit history is irrelevant. -Arb. (talk) 22:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps not the correct article. Here are sources describing another person as the grandfather of India [4], [5]. The current target may be known as "Rashtrapitamah" among his supporters. "Grandfather of India" is a translation. --NeilN talk to me 22:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect should be deleted per WP:V, WP:SOAPBOX, and WP:HOAX. Let me explain:
    1. There is no reliable source that calls Dayanand as "Rashtrapitamah" or that calls him "Grandfather of India".
    2. The article lists a source titled, "Rajender Sethi Rashtra Pitamah Swami Dayanand Saraswati (MRSethi Educational Trust Chandigarh, 2006)", which uses Rashtrapitamah in its title. I have not been able to confirm the existence, let alone the reliability, of this publication outside wikipedia and its mirrors. Worldcat doesn't find the book or author in any library holdings. Given the name of the author and publisher, it is almost surely a self-published (or possibly non-existent) source.
    3. "Grandfather of India" is a translation of the presumed (and unverified) title, Rashtrapitamah, and wikipedia should not be in the business of reifying such translated titles through redirects. Furthermore it is the wrong translation. "Rashtrapitamah" correctly translates to "Grandfather of the nation" (cf, Father of the Nation, which are recognition of a person's contributions in obtaining nationhood for a country and are rarely, if ever, substitutable by "Fathers of America", "Father of India" etc.)
    4. While, as I said, no reliable sources for the title in the redirect, there is a campaign on some Arya Samaj related webforums to spread the meme. For example see this post, and note that its author, Rajender Sethi, is the author the dubious source being cited on wikipedia.
    5. It's instructive to see how this meme started on wikipedia. It was added to the Dayananda article in February by User:Rajender Sethi. At first the sentence was "'In fact Swami Dayanand rightfully deserves to be called as" Grandfather of India. Later it was changed to the claim that he is called that, and a citation to a dubious reference written by "Rajender Sethi" added. This appears to be simply a one person quest to spread a hoax title on and off-wikipedia.
    In short, wikipedia is being used as a soapbox here, to create a non-existent title for Dayanand Saraswati. Abecedare (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, as per Abecedare. This is clearly Arya Samaj meme-spam. rudra (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only "Grandfather of India" available according to published sources [6] is Dadabhai Naoroji.--Termer (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Abecedare. With absolutely no reliable evidence that this person—and only, or at least primarily, this person—is called "Grandfather of India," the least that can be said is that the redirect is misleading and implies a point of view.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, patent nonsense /hoax. No reliable sources or verifiability. Dadabhai Naoroji is more commonly referred to as "the grand old man of India". If anyone should get this title it would be Rajnarayan Basu - 10 out of the top 10 google search for "grandfather of indian nationalism" which the aryasamaj.org discussion cited by User:Abecedare was trying to usurp.Annette46 (talk) 17:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From the above impassioned discussion it sounds as though there is a real need for this page either as an explanation (summary of the discussion above) or as a disanbiguation page. The term "Grandfather of the Indian Nation" still appears in Swami Dayananda Saraswati. -Arb. (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Schoolyard taunting[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely clear what significance this redirect has; it's only got two links, one of which appears to refer to its earlier target - don't think it's worth having ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 18:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boa Constructor[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep as retargeted. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not comply with WP:R's list of redirect purposes. The closest applicable purpose would be "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article.", but Boa Constructor is not even mentioned in the Python (programming language) article and in any case is too tangential/trivial in the context of Python to merit redirecting there. Cybercobra (talk) 12:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems to me that if someone enters "Boa Constructor" in the search box intending to find something about the Python programming language, and there's no article titled Boa Constructor, then it should redirect, and possibly be tagged with the "R with possibilities" template. Michael Hardy (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A better redirect is to wxPython, which is what Boa Constructor more specifically supports; but that article doesn't mention it either (at least not yet; I may update it this weekend to do so). Actually, Boa Constrictor is worthy of its own article, but the most recent version did not make sufficient claims to notability to survive WP:Articles for deletion/Boa Constructor. I think if rewritten, incorporating sources like these, in particular the Martinelli and Hetland books, it could be resuscitated. TJRC (talk) 01:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that I've changed it to redirect to List of integrated development environments for Python. Boa Constructor is at least mentioned there, and a brief feature comparison list is given for it. Someone might be looking for it, and a table of such comparisons at least provides a bit of relevant content. LotLE×talk 04:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"A dog is for life, not just for Christmas'"[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from the useless quotations marks, there is also a random apostrophe floating around at the end of each of these. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

" Naxalbari National Heritage Academy"[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. There is a strong consensus against redirects with quotes to targets with the same name without quotes. Magioladitis (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Business/organization names with quotation marks. As with WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 29#"Alexander R. Bolling", quotation marks have no place around a name (or around almost any article title, for that matter). (P.S. Romanian and Estonian names, which in their respective languages frequently use quotation marks, are not listed here because they seem like plausible redirects. P.P.S. None of these are slogans; they are all names.) — the Man in Question (in question) 10:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Khoekhoegowap" language[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needless and unhelpful quotation marks. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Jackson, UT"[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete per discussion and per previous RfDs. Magioladitis (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Placenames with quotation marks. As with WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 29#"Alexander R. Bolling", quotation marks have no place around a name (or around almost any article title, for that matter). — the Man in Question (in question) 10:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does alien life exist[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete Does alien life exist, Does the autistic child have a 'theory of mind'?, and Do fish feel pain?, and No Consensus for Does God exist?. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia. Wikipedia is not WikiAnswers. — the Man in Question (in question) 09:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsuitable redirects. They suggest debate or discussion, which is not what Wikipedia is for. --Taelus (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, per nominator. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete #3. Weak keep the remainder—I know that this isn't WikiAnswers, but they seem moderately plausible. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 19:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete #3. Weak keep the remainder, agree with Treasury Tag. Does God exist certainly seems like a plausible thing people might enter to go to the page on the existence of God. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete #1, #3, and #4 as nominator. I admit "Does God exist?" may be a valid redirect. #1's target—Drake equation—is related to the redirect, but is not an answer to the question. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It answers the question to the same extent that Existence of God answers its question... ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 07:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it answers the question to the same extent that The Probability of God answers the question "Does God exist?". The probability of aliens may be 99%, and that does not mean that there is a single alien in existence; or the probability may be 1% and yet the universe may be teeming with them. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Do you love what you eel[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted WP:CSD#R3. JohnCD (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd nonsense. Presumably a typo. — the Man in Question (in question) 09:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Does he look like a bitch[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target article. Random quotes from movies can't all be turned into redirects. — the Man in Question (in question) 09:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete If this was a main quote from the film, which was mentioned in the target article, I would suggest keeping, but as it is not, I see no reason for keeping, as per nom. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:06, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, Phantomsteve. We are not Wikiquote. Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Asa Seeley[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots#George W. Bush ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per this AFD from a year ago, this was to be a redirect to West Baltimore (MARC station)#Presidential assassination attempt. However, with the perspective of time, discussion at Talk:West Baltimore (MARC station) shows there is consensus to not include the Asa Seeley information in the article. Therefore, the redirect should be deleted, as it is now useless and confusing. There was also an AN or ANI thread about this a while ago, which I haven’t found but will hunt for. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Sebwite below, I'll change my comment to: keep redirect but change target to List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots#George W. Bush. While I'm not 100% convinced this was an actual assassination attempt or that the material belongs there either, since there has actually been information about Seeley there for a month, it is not confusing, and the obvious target. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it is dependant on information which was removed by consensus. --Taelus (talk) 21:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is already consensus not to have a standalone article. I agree about that. But there is sourced information on the subject, and I am skeptical as to whether the information should have been removed from that article. This redirect meets none of the criteria for deletion under WP:R#DELETE and meets multiple criteria under WP:R#KEEP, most probably all of nos. 1-5. Sebwite (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It meets criteria #2 of WP:R#DELETE; it is confusing. If there is nothing in the target article about Seeley, then a redirect from Asa Seeley is confusing. The only reason to keep in #1-5 of WP:R#KEEP that I believe applies is the contribution history issue, but than can be better handled by one of the methods Flatscan proposes on his talk page (see immediately below). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • It very much meets #5 in WP:R#KEEP, which says "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways." The history of this article and redirect, and the page to which it redirects, is actually described in one of the policy/guideline pages as an example of notability, so in this case, it is very much useful and should be kept.
      • It meets #1 of WP:R#KEEP, which says "They have a potentially useful page history." Though the current version does not seem to be used, the previous versions indeed are.
      • It also should be kept per criteria #3 in WP:R#KEEP and WP:MANYLINKS. This is a list of pages that link to this redirect. Sebwite (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AN discussion: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive205#Defying an AFD decision. I explained my comment at User talk:Flatscan#On deleting a redirect: the redirect can be removed from article space, but a less common method of attribution must be used. Flatscan (talk) 07:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the AN link, Flatscan, for some reason I couldn't find it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This can be resolved not by deleting it, but perhaps by changing the redirect. Sebwite (talk) 22:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per the concensus at the talk page and per WP:R#DELETE criteria 2 (if I was redirected to that page, I would be confused as to why there is no mention of Seeley). With regard to the pages which link to the Seeley page, only one of them is an article (here), and that mention is referenced - so I have removed the link. The others are in "Wikipedia:" and "User talk:" namespaces. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as per Sebsite below. I'm a dope - I even linked to that article/section in my delete !vote! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the non-mainspace pages, they may seem worthless to them, if you are not the one who has worked on them. But then again, that is when you recall criterion #5 of R#KEEP, about finding it useful. Once again, it states, "If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways."
  • Retarget as per Sebwite. The only problem I see with that is someone will come along and link Asa Seeley in that article, making a round-trip, but that is small fry. Si Trew (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as SimonTrew. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Help links?[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. Jafeluv (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect all created by user MJfan9 in 18 minutes. Those redirect are not probable redirect and they link to articles that are already very easy to access. I ask for deletion as they are unnecessary. Stroppolotalk 02:06, 7 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_7&oldid=1186986103"