Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 23, 2011

Beverly Whipple[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 08:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article this link redirects to is about a book cowritten by Beverly Whipple. However, it does not actually contain any information on Beverly Whipple. According to the 10th reason listed at WP:RFD#DELETE, "[i]f the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This doesn't qualify for the reason You've linked: the target has information on a topic. Why do You think this redirect could be expanded in the article? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does in fact qualify. The redirect (Beverly Whipple) could plausibly be expanded into an article of its own, and the target article ( The G Spot and Other Recent Discoveries About Human Sexuality) doesn't contain anything about Beverly Whipple except a brief mention.
      • Then write a stub. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know enough about the subject to write a stub. I just know enough that someone with more knowledge of Whipple could plausibly write an article on her. The issue here isn't "let's write an article on Beverly Whipple", it's "the target of the redirect includes no information on the redirect, and the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, so isn't it better that it just be left as a redlink?" — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 22:25, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Either You have some notability proof that You don't disclose (then why can't You write a stub?), or it is a bogus nomination that fails to prove that the redirect actually can plausibly be expanded into an article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • She meets criteria 1 and 7 of WP:PROF: Her "research [about the G-spot and other matters of sexuality] has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed", and she "has made substantial impact outside academia in [her] academic capacity"--she "popularized the G-spot", according to USA Today. Is that enough for you? — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 01:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Frankly, I don't see any signs that those criteria are met. Still the point stands: if You know what she is notable for, write a stub and defend it. If You lack the needed knowledge, how can You be so sure she is notable? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Actually, I don't have to prove she's notable. I have to prove that an article could plausibly be written on her. Not definitely. Plausibly. And yes, the criteria are met. She was responsible for popularizing the G-spot--that clearly falls under criterion number 7 of WP:PROF: Through her academic capacity (researching and writing about the G-spot), she has made substantial impact outside academia (there are soooo many sex guides out there that mention the G-spot, and she played a hand in bringing the existence and function of the G-spot to the greater public). — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I saw an article on human sexuality last night, and Beverly Whipple featured prominently. I came here to read about here, and am surprised that she doesn't have her own article. I'll start one if needed, as I have no doubt that she's notable enough for one. (It will be a few days though, I have other plans). As for the redirect, I've no opinion.--Dmol (talk) 10:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • So do it! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Czarkoff: He says he'll do it right there in his comment...
      • @Dmol: If you want to, maybe we can collab on a userspace draft? I also have other plans, so working together might help speed the process up. I'll start looking for sources in a bit! (Please, if you reply here, {{lmatb}} — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:11, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why userspace draft? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because I am a very busy person and don't have the time to sit down and write a good article in one go. Why not use a userspace draft? {{lmatb}} when you reply here. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Everybody is busy. Still we are talking about a page with two incoming list, so an incrementally edited stub with a link to The G Spot and Other Recent Discoveries About Human Sexuality will do. Nobody tells You must write a GA in one go. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't saying I need to write a GA. I was using "good" as an adjective, not as one word of a phrase. If you want a lengthy explanation of my reasoning, here ya go: I need time to write something that isn't more than one line long. I also like to make lists of links to use as references and build from there. Sometimes, I even outline too! Too many articles are just started on the fly, which is why they end up speedied or prodded within minutes of creation. Moreover, I have an internet connection that is prone to failing without notice, so I tend to save my work very often lest I lose it. If I did that with an article in mainspace, it would look like a pile of doo and likely get nominated for deletion. So I'm going to use a userspace draft to do it, instead of starting a draft in the mainspace. TLDR? My methods work. I don't see why doing what I intend to do merits your questioning. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of references to Beverly Whipple; she is notable; just hasn't got an article yet. The redirect is the next best thing. Tom Pippens (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, respectfully, no, it's not. The redirect target contains next to nothing about her; just her name. Per Wikipedia's deletion of redirects policy, it is acceptable to delete the redirect "[i]f the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject... it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 04:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hiya Cymru.lass, currently there is also a link to her web site. Beverly Whipple is Professor Emerita at Rutgers University. Her academic work has included experiments leading to the isolation of the vasoactive intestinal peptide.(refThe Independent Thrill cuts out the middle man 8 April 1997). I do not like experiments on animals so my feelings towards her are mixed but she has done a lot of serious stuff. If you are old enough I dare you to have a look at her publications. Tom Pippens (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Did I ever say I thought she wasn't notable? No. If you had read any of the above comments you would have seen I do think she is notable. That is not the issue here. Once more, I will provide you with this quote from WP:RFD#DELETE: it is acceptable to delete the redirect "[i]f the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article [i.e., if the subject is notable, which she is], and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject" (material in brackets added by me). Boom. There is grounds in policy for the deletion of this redirect. I never said I didn't think she was notable... Also, please don't insinuate that I am young or immature as you just did. Moreover, her publications aren't pornographic; rather, they are academic, so it is acceptable for a person of any age to read them. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Still the same problem: WP:WTAF. After nearly a month no stub. The crystal clear indication of why we need redirects. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed - Page no longer a Redirect I have started the article. All input on the article or talk page greatly appreciated. Anyway, Cymru.lass, sorry for the insult. And yes you could be a 45 year old bloke for all that I know but, I personally would not want to be seen encouraging a minor to read about subject matter that includes "Effects of Vaginal Stimulation on Pain Thresholds in Women". Tom Pippens (talk) 09:57, 17 January 2012 (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.

Template:PD-US but not country of origin/doc[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; has already been deleted by an admin. (non-admin closure) — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 23:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation sub-page for moved template, No incoming links. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:06, 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.

Template:PD-1909[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:18, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No media now uses this tag, I feel it's time to formally deprecate this in favour of using it's target exclusivly Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:04, 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.

Template:PD[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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:21, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD}} Is now only used by a single file, Therfore I feel it's time to formally deprecate this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - when reverting to or viewing old versions of a page, this template is still transcluded. Same thing goes when undeleting old files. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:10, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The template has already been deprecated, and the redirect is harmless. It also serves as a shortcut that's easy to remember. See the discussion from 2010. - Eureka Lott 08:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep why do you need to delete the redirect? It's much easier to type. Tag it as a shortcut. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:04, 25 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.

Template:Copyrighted free use[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  Relisted on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_23#January_23. Ruslik_Zero 13:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting RFD debate, as to me Copyrighted free-use is NOT the same as 'public domain'. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:49, 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.

Wikipedia:CUNT[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems a pointless new creation that can serve no purpose except to encourage further poisoning of the atmosphere with offensive language. (We're already seeing someone insisting on "advertising" the redirect at the target page.) Kotniski (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and please add WP:DICK to the deletion request as both are equally offensive. Yomanganitalk 12:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (reasons G10, R2 and R3) Delete as pointless (as opposed to WP:DICK, which is a valid shortcut). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of those reasons for speedy deletion apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually all of them did until You argued on it. Now WP:SPEEDY doesn't apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope, it was actually your argument that invalidated the first - G10 only applies to WP:CUNT if it also applies to WP:DICK, and you suggest that it doesn't. As to the other two? It's not a redirect from mainspace to another space, so R2 cannot possibly apply, and it's not a typo, so R3 doesn't apply. It has nothing to do with me, you're simply applying criteria incorrectly or inconsistently. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • G10 - applied to WP:CUNT. No reasons applied to WP:DICK as it didn't qualify for WP:SPEEDY at all. R2 applies, as this is a redirect to cross-space redirect, thus double cross-space redirect. R3 applies as it is a misnomer for the target. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Your argument makes no sense at all. If G10 applied to WP:CUNT, it would apply equally to WP:DICK; you provide no reason why this would not be the case. If you read the description of R2, you'll note that it applies only to "redirects...from the main namespace" (my emphasis), so it cannot apply to a redirect in projectspace. R3 does not apply because it isn't a misnomer - it's an alternate title. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • G10 can't apply to WP:DICK because WP:DICK doesn't qualify for WP:SPEEDY. If something isn't a bird, it can't be a duck. You're actually right about R2. About R3: may be my knowledge of anatomy isn't perfect, but I'm pretty sure these are not alternative titles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • In this case it isn't your knowledge of anatomy that's imperfect, but your understanding of English - we're not discussing redirecting cunt to penis, but a different meaning of both words. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I'm perfectly sure these words have no common meaning to discuss. Here we discuss the attempt at stretching the meaning of "cunt" to fit the meaning of "dick". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And I'm perfectly sure you're still misunderstanding what I'm trying to say, but as you will. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Calling someone a "cunt" is not the same as calling someone a "dick". When you say someone is being a dick, you are calling them out for boorish behavior. AFAIK, "cunt" used as a slur is just a generalized insult, it has no defined or common usage analogous to dick. If the creation of this was some women's lib attempt to address some sort of misogyny thing where the usage of a term based on male anatomy is ok while the usage of a term based on female anatomy is not, then that person should read up on WP:POINT and find something more productive to do than be disruptive. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as offensive and unnecessary redirect and per Tarc's findings, it's not even a valid synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 15:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cuntish and dickish behaviour are synonymous; I don't think the exhortation here is to avoid physically transforming into genitalia. (and per Tarc's edit summary that it is offensive is no reason to delete it). Yomanganitalk 15:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    They are not synonymous. Tarc (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY-MERGE CUNT→DICK. REPEAT. Alarbus (talk) 03:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "cunt" is not remotely comparable to "dick", per Tarc's reasoning, and the redirect was created to make a point about this incident. Hut 8.5 16:13, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This incident can't serve a basis neither for creating redirects, nor for their deletion. We shouldn't mix the Wikipedia's internal process with the content questions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • We shouldn't mix the Wikipedia's internal process with the content questions - exactly: this redirect wasn't created as a search term but rather to make a point about the Malleus incident. This isn't the point of a redirect. Hut 8.5 13:27, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, you're wrong: it wasn't created to make a point about that incident, though that incident did contribute to the creation of the redirect. A subtle difference that some commentators here seem to be missing...Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for pointyness. Jonathunder (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:POINT, as you seem to be wildly misinterpreting it. There is a point to this redirect, obviously, as there is a point to any redirect; that should not be a reason for deletion. "pointless", while not a descriptor I agree with, would at least be arguable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:19, 29 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_23&oldid=1145853893"