Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 14, 2010

수도권[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 Keep. Lenticel (talk) 01:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users of the English Wikipedia are unlikely to enter search terms in Korean. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 17:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's a dump of non-English European titles, instead. Just look at Icelandic, Balkan and German topics. Not English, just a bunch of non-English lettering. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 00:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the fact that this is in an Asian script is not currently a ground for deletion. We have many such foreign language redirects and there is no mileage in zapping odd ones. However, a translation gives its meaning as 'Metropolitan' which seems far too general to be a search term for the target. I think some expert input is needed so I have alerted Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Users of the English Wikipedia are quite likely to enter foreign terms into the searchbox when they don't know how they're transcribed, either:
  1. due to multiple competing formal and ad-hoc transcriptions (this is especially a problem with Arabic and Korean)
  2. or because they can't read the term and they copy-pasted it from somewhere else
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/東北大學, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/東北大學 (2nd nomination) for more about this. Google Translate is not correct here; "Sudogwon" means "the area (gwon) around the capital (sudo)" and virtually always refers to the Seoul National Capital Area. (If Pyongyang uses a similar term --- which to my knowledge they do not --- it can be taken care of with a hatnote). cab (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • One good example of people searching for Korean names on the English Wikipedia: the 노무현 redirect, which got 49 views last month [1], and 1,011 last May when he died [2]. There's more than 100 possible English spellings of this guy's name ... cab (talk) 02:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Coffee Table Book (Seinfeld)[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 keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really implausible title for anybody to input ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 13:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - long-standing title, with the redirect created after a content merge, here. Deletion would breach our GFDL obligations and keeping is the most convenient way of meeting them. The stats show that this gets a regular flow of hits. Not an implausible search term; someone entering 'Coffee Table Book' into the search box gets offered this as one of just two links. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bridgeplayer's explanation. It's not unlikely that someone would type "Coffee Table Book" into the search box looking for this, and then select this entry from the list.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but add hatnote. I misread which redirect we were talking about. Keep it, but add the hatnote on Coffee table book. Si Trew (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. By the way I don't understand what GDFL obligations we'd fail by deleting it. Si Trew (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the position is described at WP:COPYWITHIN. When content is added, the editor retains the copyright, and if the content is copied or merged it is done so under the GFDL attribution licence, so if the history is deleted then Wikipedia has broken the terms of that licence. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Nortern Lights[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 Northern Lights. Jafeluv (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this redirect. Merely a misspelling and not a common one at that. If to be kept, at least direct to Northern Lights. Mistakefinder (talk) 08:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No more plausible than leaving out any other letter from the title; has no incoming links; the book is the wrong target anyway.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 15:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not really very useful. Nyttend (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Northern Lights - how common and useful a typo is, are not grounds for deletion, except for recently created redirects. This is a harmless redirect that does not meet any of those deletion criteria. In addition, it gets a small number of hits each month so it has some, albeit limited, use. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Northern Lights per Bridgeplayer.--Lenticel (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Northern Lights because it helps the user get to where they're going. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Big tits[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 breast. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like an appropriate redirect to me. Breast fetishism isn't necessarily about attraction to large breasts; it can also be attraction to small breasts (in up to 33% of cases, according to some estimates). Second of all, it implies that large breasts are always sexualized, which could be considered offensive to the women who have them. Third of all, it's a slang term bordering on vandalism. If we must have a redirect, it should probably go to tit (disambiguation), breast, or even more appropriately, an article about human breast size. How come we have an article on human penis size and not an article on human breast size, considering that the latter shows much greater variation than the former? Anyway, I don't think the redirect as it is now serves much of a purpose. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also, the similar term big boobs redirects to breast, which in my opinion is a more appropriate topic. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I should prefer big boobs to redirect to boob since a 'big boob' is also a common phrase for a major error. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Converted to disambiguation page - this has been subject to a mini-revert war, as is common with such terms, and this is an effective way to resolve matter whilst being helpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to breast. I don't think that the disambig page is helpful. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Neo-Nazi Theory (American founding fathers)[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect doesn't seem appropriate. First of all, it's an unlikely search term. Second of all, the target doesn't deal with all or even most of "the founding fathers", only Ben Franklin, so it doesn't really fit. Third of all, the term "theory" appears to be misused here; this isn't a theory, it's a flat-out lie. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this used to be a stub of an article on this fringe theory. A couple of years ago it was redirected, with no content merge so there are no GFDL implications. The target doesn't seem particularly relevant and it is therefore confusing. I haven't found a better retarget. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

White gospel[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting delete of a redirect with no incoming link pages; created by an editor currently in a dispute regarding the use of the Black gospel redirect. Absolon S. Kent (talk) 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Southern Gospel#Origins where there is a sourced explanation of the term. The New Rolling Stone Album Guide, in a quote included in Elvis Presley, describes him as: "arguably the greatest white gospel singer of his time ...". Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created it, and I recommend leaving it where it is, because if someone sees the term (>100K ghits on the quoted phrase) and goes searching for it, they'll want to know what kind of music it is, not merely the fact that the name reflects the history of the racial segregation, which in turn affected the development of gospel music. I think that the first chapter of ISBN 9780807853467 by Prof. James Goff, Ph.D., whose specialty is the history of the New South and American religious history, alone is sufficient support for the notability of the name. My favorite line from that chapter is, "It is an indictment of American history that black and white gospel developed as separate—and parallel—traditions."
    "White gospel music" is also the title for an Encyclopedia Britannica article[3], which indicates to me that the term is mainstream. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 14 July 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_July_14&oldid=1150995023"