Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 17, 2011

Bed blocking[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, now that it has been retargetted to a better article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Target page does not define, or even mention this term. Either that needs to be fixed or this redirect should be deleted as it does not help users find out what this term means. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: it explains the term and mentions it in the last phrase: "Fines for social services departments did succeed in reducing bed-blocking, but the numbers are creeping up again." — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Somehow I did not see that. Still not terribly clear to someone totally unfamiliar with the term though. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm totally unfamiliar with the term (as well as with medical topics generally), but the matter is perfectly clear for me. What am I doing wrong? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, the target article contains only one instance of the word "blocking". Nowhere in the article is the term expressly defined. Without such a definition, the redirect should be deleted unless a better target is found. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • May be a better solution would be to cover the term in the target in more detail? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly satisfy my concerns. Of course in the absence of a reliably sourced definition of the term that may be difficult. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a jargon term, not the proper one. Definitely someone with insight is needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:32, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2000 hits on the BBC alone. I'm pretty sure an article can be written here, in place of a redirect that really doesn't help explain much. 109.155.179.29 (talk) 21:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep IMO it could be tagged as {{R with possibilities}}, but there's no deadline for expanding it. Bed blocking is a piece of the Bed management problem. Last I checked, the particular term was a UK-oriented term, which is why it redirects to the NHS bit about the problem. I'm not sure that the rationale for deletion is an appropriate one: If the problem can be entirely solved by editing, then deletion is not appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to fix it myself if I understood what the term meant. In the absence of such an explanation, the redirect would seem to be doing a disservice by pointing readers to content that does not answer even the most basic questions about this term, including the very definition of it. I'd be glad to withdraw the nom if somebody who did know what it means and had a reference to verify that could make those changes. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried reading any of the sources that the unregistered user linked to? For that matter, have you tried reading the paragraph in Bed management that ends with the sentence 'This is sometimes known as a "bed blocking"'? I've seen you master far more complex concepts with ease, so I'm sure this is within your capabilities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted to Bed management. Lmatt (talk) 13:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Bed management. The term is better detailed there.--Lenticel (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the retargeting, the Bed management article explains the meaning much more clearly. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

KSOI[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. Ruslik_Zero 14:36, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per policy: redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name Nunh-huh 20:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: it doesn't qualify for the named reason, as it is an acronym for Kaposi's Sarcoma Opportunistic Infection. Kaposi's Sarcoma is discussed as opportunistic infection right on the target page, so this redirect should be marked as {{R from acronym}} and left alone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Kaposi's Sarcoma Opportunistic Infection" is not the way anyone would refer to "Kaposi's sarcoma"; "Kaposi's Sarcoma Opportunistic Infection" is a very obscure and strictly historical synonym for "Gay Related Immune Deficiency", itself a short-lived synonym for "AIDS". There is no article for "Gay Related Immune Deficiency", as the AIDS article already says everything there is to say about it. - Nunh-huh 06:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The KSOI redirect pointed to gay-related immune deficiency until You retargeted it to Kaposi's Sarcoma. It seems extremely dubious that "Kaposi's Sarcoma Opportunistic Infection" is a synonym to GRID, as the name suggests the reference to Kaposi's sarcoma with an emphasis on AIDS defining properties, so the current target You've set is indeed the most relevant. Could it happen that You want this redirect deleted for some non-encyclopedic reasons? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is the person who created the redirect that maintains "Kaposi's Sarcoma Opportunistic Infection" is a synonym to GRID. The dubiousness of this-the reason for my redirection-is yet another reason for deletion. The person who created the redirect is well-known for creating homophobic redirects (he was responsible for a plethora of "AIDS kills fags dead" redirects that took years to clean up.) Removing bizarre, "point"y redirects is of course, encyclopedic, not non-encyclopedic. - Nunh-huh 20:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally if you are going to say "per policy" it is a good idea to say what policy it is you are citing, preferably with a link to the section of it that backs up what you are saying. Perhaps the nominator would care to do that now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's just one of my personal pet peeves in deletion discussions, it's easy to add a link so as to make things more transparent for those not as thoroughly versed in the exact wording of the relevant policies. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Japanese Nationalism Ideologycal development from 1920s years untill 1945[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:21, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a very unlikely and awkward phrase. "Ideologycal" is also an unlikely typo. Cloveapple (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete extremely unlikely search term, no relevant incoming links, and on top of all that an unlikely typo. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: indeed the phrase is awkward enough to be a search term, but the typo "ideologycal" is fairly likely; though the stats reveal that the only page readers are bots. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mispelled and unlikely synonym --Lenticel (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_December_17&oldid=1091633098"