Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 16, 2011

Trudeau salute[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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:54, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no explaination of use, possibly created in an act of vandalism. 117Avenue (talk) 21:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep see wikt:Citations:Trudeau_salute#English ; this is a Canadian English term. Though this illustrates why redirects should have documentation. 64.229.100.61 (talk) 05:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The nominator could easily have looked this up to see it is legitimate. McLerristarr | Mclay1 06:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, I did after listing it here. Since it was created by an IP, and redirects to the finger, I thought it was vandalism. But there is no explanation of usage at that article, should an article be written at Trudeau salute, to explain how the phrase became famous, or should it be replaced by {{Wiktionary redirect|Trudeau salute}}? 117Avenue (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change target to [[Pierre Trudeau#Legacy with respect to western Canada]]. Or put an {{Visible anchor}} at "Years later" and have it redirect directly to the correct sentence. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 10:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles/Userbox[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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to delete this redirect. The whole project to which it belonged was moved in the middle of 2009 to another namespace. Cross-namespace redirects are good candidates for deletion. The page has no incoming links whatsoever, nor should it ever get any. In addition it is the only page in a maintenance category that could without this one redirect be empty or even deleted. Debresser (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – I don't understand people's constant objection to cross-namespace redirects. Things should not be deleted just for the sake of "cleaning up". This deletion nomination only exists in an attempt to empty a category which the nominator would like to delete. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't understand, but see point 6 of the instructions what are good reasons for deletion. Sorry, but you are trying change the rules here. That is in addition to the other reasons I mentioned. Debresser (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reason 6 is for cross-namespace redirects out of the main namespace. Basically, you don't actually have a reason to delete this page. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not all cross namespace redirects are equal - redirects from article space to project space are normally not appropriate as they can be harmful (although this does not mean they always are), redirects out of projects space are more rarely a problem (although this does not mean they always aren't). Note that the reasons for deletion linked to explictly mention "redirects out of article space", which is not applicable here. In this case, Wikipedia: to Template: is pretty neutral and absent any actual benefit to deleting there is no reason to delete it. The comments about the category should be made at WP:CFD and are irrelevant to the merits or otherwise of this redirect. Lack of incomming links is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The appeal to RFD#D6 is irrelevant since that explicitly says redirects out of article space. There is not and never has been a prohibition against redirects from Wikipedia to Template or vice versa. And even the argument against cross-namespace redirects generally would be trumped in this case by RFD#K1 (useful history - in this case, helping to document the pagemove), K4 (risk breaking links), etc. The lack of inbound links is also irrelevant. In an ideal world, all redirects would be orphans. That is not a reason for deletion. Rossami (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Abdulaziz Saleh Sultan Sinan Al Dossary[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no article about this person on wikipedia, the redirect goes to the Royal_Bahraini_Air_Force, where it says that on 27 September 2003 a F16 crashed and this was the pilot. Absolutely not noteworthy! Superfluous redirect. noclador (talk) 14:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep-No reason to delete. I doubt he's notable enough for his own article, so a redirect to an article with information on an incident he is related to is entirely reasonable. Redirects are cheap.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The redirect was first created as the result of this AFD debate, almost a year ago. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I thought he was notable enough for an article due to the widespread concern at the time of his disappearance that he had not died in a crash, but that instead he had fallen under US suspicion of a tie to terrorism, had been seized, in secret, by a CIA snatch team, and was being interrogated in one of the CIA's secret interrogation centers. This speculation was taken seriously enough that it was reported in newspapers in the Persian Gulf region, and for the Kuwaiti government to release an official press release that specifically denied them. I figured the (1) disappearance, (2) widespread speculation he was in CIA custody, were two separate events. As noted above, there was an {{afd}}, where I failed to convince those participating that the coverage of these two events rose to a sufficient level of notability for a separate article. The administrator who concluded that {{afd}} concluded this should be a redirect. I suggest now that retaining the redirect is important. The CIA did secretly capture a reasonably large number of individuals, since 9-11. Four or five years ago they confirmed they had done so. They asserted it was "under 100" individuals. Human rights workers dispute that number.

    On September 6th, 2006 President Bush asserted that the CIA's interrogation centers had been "emptied", and the last 14 captives, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, transferred to military custody at Guantanamo. Human rights worker tried to correct the reporting in the press that Bush had closed the CIA interrogation centers. And, in fact, they have not been closed. Human rights workers have published lists of individuals they think were held in CIA custody, and who no one knows who they are.

    I am sure that even if President Obama was to shut down the CIA's snatch teams tomorrow legal scholars, journalists and reporters will continue to write about their activities for decades. A scholar, or journalist, may publish a story tomorrow, that contains more details refuting the speculation Al Dossary was subjected to extraordinary rendition. Alternately, they may publish more details that explain further why commentators at the time engaged in that speculation about Al Dossary's disappearance. It is probably unlikely, but they may publish more details that confirmed that the speculation was based on clues that remain credible today, in spite of the official Kuwaiti government denial.

    If I notice more details emerging, I would contact the administrator who closed the original {{afd}}, and ask him or her whether they thought those new details supported changing the redirect back to an article, incorporating the new information. I would encourage anyone else who notices more details emerging about Al Dossary to do likewise. So long as this remains a redirect any good faith contributor can look at the past history. If it is deleted anyone who is not an administrator would have to go to a lot of effort to look at the contents from before it was a redirect. So, I suggest, deletion of this redirect would offer no real benefit and could put good faith contributors to a lot of needless effort.

    The article the redirect points to should probably contain at least a sentence about the speculation that Al Dossary disappeared into a CIA interrogation center. Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Katelyn Pacitto[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 Deleted. Redirecting is not helpful to our readers as it gives the false impression she was only involved in the one series. We have the search function as well as redirects for navigation and this is a case where the search function is superior. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Individual is non notable and a previous bio at the location was deleted. It presently redirects to I'm in the Band which doesn't actually include any information on the actor herself. A bluelink misleads readers into believing there is information on the actor at the target while a redlink would be more informative by letting readers know that there isn't. AussieLegend (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The target page lists her as an actor playing the part of Lana in season 1 and shows an alias. While thin, that is at least some information about her. Returning the page to a redlink would be appropriate only if there is evidence that an article qualifying under Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria will be possible. The uncontested PROD deletion of a year ago suggests that she perhaps does not qualify. Redlinking also only works if the redlink is visible and might inspire others to write the page. In this case, the redirect is an orphan - redlinking will not do what you hope. If, however, you feel strongly that an acceptable article can be written, just overwrite it with some proposed content. Deletion of the redirect is unnecessary. Rossami (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • By this logic we can justify creating redirects for all actors to programs in which they've appeared as long as they are mentioned in the article. The problem with this redirect is that it exhibits, even more seriously, the issue I pointed out below with Matthew Timmons.[1] According to her IMDB bio,[2] Pacitto has appeared in more than one program, so what justifies a redirect to any one of them over any of the others? She has been in 3 episodes of Everybody Hates Chris and 3 episodes of Good Luck Charlie, while she appeared in only 2 episodes of I'm in the Band so where should this redirect actually point? The answer is really nowhere because you can't redirect to multiple articles. She's not notable enough for an article at this point, so there's no point creating one. The best option is a redlink. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The editors of the other two pages you list have not found her sufficiently notable to even include on the page, much less to create links on her name. No one has yet created a page for her that meets Wikipedia's inclusion standards. Together, that suggests to me that she doesn't meet the inclusion standards. That's a rebuttable presumption, though. Create the article. In the meantime, the redirect to a page that does list her name is (slightly) more useful to readers than a redlink. My point is not that the redirect must be kept-as-is, only that there is no value to deleting the pagehistory. Just overwrite it if you think an article can be written. Note: I'm not creating the article because I don't have sources substantiating the claims in your reply. (IMDB fails WP:RS.) If you have reliable sources, though, just do it. Rossami (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per the arguments put forward by AussieLegend. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Matthew Timmons[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. I have also protected the redirect in my capacity as an ordinary, uninvolved admin to prevent recreation of an unreferenced BLP. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing problem since 2008. Individual is non notable and previous bios have been deleted several times. It presently redirects to a section on the recurring character that he plays in The Suite Life on Deck which doesn't actually include any information on the actor himself. A bluelink misleads readers into believing there is information on the actor at the target while a redlink would be more informative by letting readers know that there isn't. AussieLegend (talk) 14:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. That bios of him have been deleted several times shows that the community feels that we do not want an biography of him (at least at this time). Given the history of recreation, there are two methods by which further recreation can be prevented/discouraged, redirecting to an article we do have or a protected redlink (AKA "salting"). The first option gives readers some related encyclopaedic information, the latter gives them nothing. The redirect is thus preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I pointed out in the nom, The Suite Life on Deck contains no encyclopaedic information on Matthew Timmons, only on a character he portrays. Salting would probably be the better option. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An example of the uselessness of this redirect can be seen at the article Easy A, which utimately ends up at List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck, an article that has absolutely no relevance to Easy A. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree with Thryduulf in "redirecting to an article we do have" (List of recurring characters in The Suite Life on Deck).--Jax 0677 (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fallacy of this argument is that Timmons was also, apparently, in Easy A so an argument could be made to redirect to that article instead. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:44, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm with Aussie Legend on this. If it was a redirect from a character name, fair enough, but an actor who appears in more than one programme, and is not known specifically for one particular role in one particular show should either have a stub article, or no article at all. A redirect seems inappropriate. Should there be (is there?) a guideline on this? Rob Sinden (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, his role in Easy A was as "Marianne's Kiln Partner", he is a regularly appearing recurrent character on The Suite Life on Deck. To give the two roles similar importance does not seem appropriate. So, I've tried to find enough on this subject to write an article on him but there isn't enough to meet notability requirements. J04n(talk page) 14:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (though not necessarily "keep as is"). While there are two pages listing his name, the Easy A page has a bare listing buried in a long list of characters. The current target has the mention at the top of the page and includes (slightly) more information about the actor. From what I can tell, it is the more significant role. Redlinking the page sends the message that we want a bio on this actor. The pagehistory suggests that to date, the community disagrees with that position. (I have no opinion on that point.) Salting the page, however, would be overkill. Per Wikipedia policy, page protection is to be used to the minimum extent and minimum duration feasible in defense of the project. A permanent redlink would also be a disservice to readers who want to at least find the minimal information available through the existing listings. Rossami (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A new editor has created an unreferenced article at Matthew Timmons. --AussieLegend (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the notice. Page now returned to redirect status pending the creation of a sourced article documenting the subject's notability. Rossami (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Summer and Winter of Nations[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 17:05, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an apparent reference to the terms Spring of Nations for the revolutions of 1848 and Autumn of Nations for those of 1989. However, this term does not occur at all in Google News, and in the absence of reliable evidence that this term is actually used for the current revolutionary wave, we shouldn't have the redirect. Ucucha 01:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added Summer of Nations, which is exactly analogous. Ucucha 01:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, no evidence from Google News that the therms are being used, no evidence from Google Web that the terms are being used for the Arab world protests - there is one site using "Winter of nations" to refer to the 1989 events and a couple apparently using "Summer of nations" to refer to some events in about 1820, everything else is even more irrelevant. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 16 February 2011 (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/2011_February_16&oldid=1142587671"