Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 4, 2011

David Miscarriage[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 speedy delete as attack page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This malicious redirect should be deleted as an obvious vandalism, as it was deleted in 2008. It's very unlikely that anyone would misspell Miscavige as Miscarriage. Karppinen (talk) 18:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please read the edit summary for the creation of the redirect: (Typo of the sort regularly seen on closed captions)). Television news is closed captioned in real time, largely by automated speech recognition or automatic translation of stenotype input. Furthermore, in this very discussion, "Miscavige" was underlined in red on my copy of Firefox. I right-clicked it, and "Miscarriage" was the top result. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Willingale[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 Disambiguate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted as it is a civil parish so it could easily be made into a separate article Wikipwedia (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The DAB is good, but could you (or someone who knows) do something about the vague entry "A location in Essex"? Can one call any location in Essex "a Willingale", or do we just not know what kind of a location it is, or what?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've clarified it slightly (I think) by linking to the parishes Willingale Doe and Willingale Spain, although they are red links and so not ideal. I don't think that "Willingale" can refer to any location in Essex but it's just not immediately clear what specific location (or locations) it is. A google search for "Willingale" brings up a map of Essex as a possibility, but that could be due to the existence of this redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

HR 676[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 all. Ruslik_Zero 19:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm generally opposed to HR-redirects, as they're specific to a particular Congress -- the bill should be linked directly, in my opinion. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite what I meant to say -- I mean that there could be an HR676 in any given Congress, so picking one Congress's HR# as the target for the redirect is inappropriate. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are multiple notable instances, then we should have a disambiguation page. If not, I see no problem with keeping these. The question is whether there is any other H.R. 676 that people are likely to be searching for. bd2412 T 14:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
    • The first 5 pages of Google hits are for this bill. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oppose erasure of redirect. The name "HR 676" has historically been, and presumably will continue to perpetually be, the legal name for this bill. In other words, subsequent Congresses are likely to continue to file the USNHCA under "HR 676" and not under a different HR number, if for no other reason than the fact that this is the historical name and is most readily identifiable under this name. If the consensus here emerges in favor of a purge of this redirect, I'm okay with that, but personally I oppose it. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete: Kikodawgzzz, as far as I know, Congress rarely if ever withholds H.R. or S. numbers from availability in a Congress for the reason that an earlier Congress used that bill number for a very famous bill. Can you point to a single instance in the past 50 years where a bill number from one Congress was retired from use because it applied to a very famous bill? If so, is there any evidence that Congress intends to permanently retire bill number H.R. 676 (a bill that not only did not pass, but didn't even get reported out of committee)? Unless there is strong evidence that Congress intends to retire bill number H.R. 676 and leave it permanently unavailable for new legislation, I would strongly advocate deleting any variations on HR 676 as a redirect, because every two years, there is going to be another H.R. 676. If we keep this redirect and someone foolishly bookmarks a link to it they are being set up for confusion ten years from now when that page is a disambiguation of 5 bills in 5 Congresses. I can also say, as someone who has for over 20 years followed bills of interest to me, during any one session of Congress I may pay attention to the H.R. or S. bill number, but the only way I and my partners-in-interest refer to a bill from past Congresses is the bill's name by short title. Redirecting an H.R. number is the wrong way to go, unless the number is going to be permanently retired. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:08, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as useful redirects. If another HR 676 becomes notable in future, then disambiguation can be set up. We don't delete useful redirects now on the off-chance that they might not redirect tot he same article in the future as the content will continue to be at absolute most 2 clicks away if the redirect points at a different article with the current one accessible only through a disambig page. As this would require at least 2-3 other notabe HR 676s, and there hasn't been one prior to now in the entire history of the House of Representatives, assuming there will be future notable ones is very much into the realms of WP:CRYSTAL]. Thryduulf (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thryduulf: "If another HR 676 becomes notable in future" implies that HR 676 of the 111th Congress is notable. I agree that the United States National Health Care Act is sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedia article under that name. I might even agree that it is notable as HR 676 of the 111th Congress. I don't agree that it is particularly notable as HR 676, and I believe that historians of health care reform in 10 years or 50 years will talk about the United States National Health Care Act, but I don't believe they will refer to HR 676 without mentioning a specific session of Congress in the same sentence. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, also known as the 2008 Farm Bill, was a very big deal in 2008, and will affect U.S. food producers and consumers for at least five years, but it is not notable as H.R. 2419, at least without mentioning the session of Congress. How did you determine that there has never been a notable HR 676 in the history of the U.S. House of Representatives? In the 93rd Congress, HR 676 was "A bill to amend section 201 of title 18, United States Code, to provide that the bribery of State and local officials shall be a Federal crime." In the 94th Congress, HR 676 was "A bill to amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 to prohibit harassing telephone calls made to collect alleged debts, and to inform the public of their right to be free from harassing, coercive, abusive, and obscene telephone calls." In the 95th Congress, HR 676 was "A bill to repeal the Occupational Safety and Health Act." In the 98th Congress, HR 676 was "A bill to provide a remedy for sex discrimination by the insurance business with respect to the availability and scope of insurance coverage for women." In the 102nd Congress, HR 676 was "To require that the United States Postal Service rescind changes recently implemented relating to standards for the delivery of mail." This bill got 110 cosponsors, which is more than HR 676 of the 111th Congress. Who are you to say that none of these bills, or bills numbered HR 676 in more than 100 Congresses I didn't list, are notable? Also, you misconstrue WP:CRYSTAL. It means, for example, that the article Chelsea Clinton should not speculate on her possible presidential ambitions. It doesn't mean that Wikipedia editors like you or me should not think about how decisions we make now might affect Wikipedia in the future. Allowing a proliferation of HR number redirects is a decision we will regret in the future. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment HR676/HR 676/H.R. 676 is also the name of a star in the sky [1] . 64.229.103.44 (talk) 05:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the bill is re-introduced in the current session of Congress, it will be given a different HR number; likewise, HR 676 will refer to a different bill in the 112th Congress. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the pagehistory and overwrite with disambiguation content as soon as another notable HR 676 is identified. Rossami (talk) 21:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and an obvious case at that. There are protestors in my city downtown every weekend holding "Yes on HR 676" signs and they've been doing that for years. And, yes, they are all protesting for health care reform. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do hope they've changed the signs since the new Congress started, because there is no HR676 at the moment, according to http://thomas.loc.gov. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Wikiportal/War[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 Kept as there is not a consensus for deletion. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per the outcome and arguments at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_17#Wikipedia:Wikiportal.2FAfrica. Mhiji 13:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the subsequent related discussion here. Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-footer and Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-header were reinstated as they at least didn't belong in the list of 'cross-namespace redirects with little or no incoming links', with hundreds of incoming links, mostly transclusions into highly visible Portal main pages.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, have now withdrawn that from the nom. Mhiji 13:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete remaining. All the others seem to match that previous RfD: a quick scan of incoming links finds only talk pages and pages like this. Nor are they plausible search box terms.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least until certain transclusions like these are fixed.Delete yup, that's all of them. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, that's now been fixed. Any objections to deleting now? Mhiji 21:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Formula 1 as this is still getting a lot of traffic, neutral about the rest. Thryduulf (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Formula 1 one was only getting traffic because it was linked to from the WikiProject page. Since that was changed last week, it won't get the traffic any more so there's no need to keep the redirect. Mhiji 02:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How do you know it wont continue to get traffic? If you're right then there will be no harm in waiting a couple of months until the stats are available to show this. If you're wrong then deleting it now will inconvenience lots of people. Thryduulf (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Common sense. Why would it get any traffic? It's not linked to from any where. Traffic to this sort of redirect is only due to there being a link to it - no-one's going to type "Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Formula One" to get to the Formula 1 portal (Even if for some bizarre reason they did, the page still shows the log of where the page was moved to, so there's a link to the new page anyway - just the same as having a soft redirect). Portals have not been named in that way since 2005! Plus the traffic to the other redirects gives an indication of often how redirects of this format are actually visited. And I say visited, because I strongly suspect that the handful of visits these have received are by accident or from users browsing lists of CNRs. (They all seem to have been visited on 18-19 December, which would suggest it was one user looking through all pages beginning with "Wikipedia:Wikiportal/"... - there's too many of these for that just to be a coincidence (It might well have been me I can't remember). Without that visit nearly all of these weren't visited at all in the last 6 months.) Mhiji 03:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • What you're calling common sense still feels like unsourced speculation to me, and I really don't think we should delete anything based on that. It's not as if it's doing any harm. Thryduulf (talk) 11:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You haven't shown any reason why it should be kept or would get any traffic. It just seems rather silly to delete all the others and then go through the whole RfD process again in a couple of months time... We might as well just delete it now. As I said, even if it is deleted, there will still be a link to the page it's been moved to because the log is shown if anyone did happen to visit it. Mhiji 12:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • You mean no evidence that it should be kept other than the large number of people using it? We can't know that everybody using it will suddenly stop using it because it's no longer transcluded, we can't know how many people have it bookmarked, we can't know how many links there are to it on external sites. It might seem silly to you to wait a couple of months for actual evidence, but I am firmly of the opinion that we need a good reason to delete something, and that simply being a CNR is not a good reason in and of itself. We delete redirects that are harmful whether they are CNRs or not, we keep CNRs that widely used and don't conflict with anything else whether they are CNRs or not. The evidence we have for all of these redirects except the formula 1 one are that they are hardly used, but they aren't going to get confused with something they are not, hence my neutral !vote. The evidence we have for the formula 1 one is that it is well used and isn't going to get confused with something it is not, hence my keep !vote. You are of course free to renominate any redirect at any time you choose, at that time myself and others will evaluate it on the evidence available at that time. Per WP:CRYSTAL I do not evaluate something based on speculation about what the situation might be like in the future. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • It just seems completely unnecessary and that you're just illustrating a WP:POINT... Mhiji 12:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Deleting something now because of what you believe the evidence will be in the future seems for more like disruption than not deleting something based on current evidence to me. Thryduulf (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • We're deleting it now because it's completely useless (in the present) and there is no possible reason why it would be of any use to anyone. It just seems silly having to go through the whole process again in a month's time. Mhiji 03:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Actually the evidence shows that it is used in the present, which is the most reliable indicator of usefulness that we have. Rossami below also gives another reason why the redirects are useful. You have still to show how deleting the redirects benefits the project over not deleting them. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. The ones I spot-checked were all the original location of the content before the creation of the Portal namespace. The old page title is both potentially useful, important to track under GFDL and possibly still linked to from outside the project. I see no real potential for confusion here and no valid reason for deletion. Rossami (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • How are any of them "potentially useful"?! What do you mean by "important to track under GFDL"? Mhiji 03:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • GFDL requires, among other things, that we track the attribution history of content added to the encyclopedia. The decision to name a page X (or to rename it Y) is substantively no different than the decision to include paragraph A or rewrite it into paragraph B. There is some academic debate over how strictly we should interpret GFDL but I believe that in matters of copyright, we should be very conservative. The history of a pagemove is also the history of a change in content and we need to record who contributed that change. A few years back, the MediaWiki software was changed to automatically record pagemoves into the moved page's history but that's a relatively recent change. For many old pagemoves, the history behind the redirect is the only record we have of the move.
        Incidentally, the GFDL requirement also means that the attribution history has to be reasonably easily visible to all readers. Hiding the history behind the deleted space and restricting that history to admins only does not, in my opinion, meet the requirements of GFDL. Thryduulf asked on a different page if you could transcribe that history into, for example, the article's Talk page. The answer is yes but why would you bother? If the redirect is not harmful (and no evidence has yet been presented that they are), then leaving it alone is easier and less error-prone. Redirects really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you're pretty much saying we should never delete anything because you feel that the history should be available to everyone. I personally don't see why we should - and I don't see why GFDL is an issue since there is no blatant violation of it. We should interpret it as strictly as we like - if there is a good reason to interpret it very strictly, we should, if not don't. I personally can't see a good reason to. But if you feel strongly about it, propose that the way the site is run is changed, rather than patrolling RfD and just putting a Keep vote on everything - you can't do that forever - it would be better to propose a change and if that gains consensus, then it can be implemented. Also, anyone can request this information from admins anyway. If we never deleted anything and just kept everything after page moves etc, in a hundred or a thousand years time, Wikipedia will be a complete mess (It would probably be a mess even now if we hadn't deleted anything in the last 10 years.). You'd go to the search box and type something in and all you'd be presented with is hundreds of useless redirects/pages. That's not helpful at all - no-one would ever be able to find anything... Mhiji 16:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you have it backwards. The policy is and always has been "keep unless there is a good reason to delete" and "comply with all copyright laws" including GFDL. Those policies have wide and long-standing consensus. If you want to change those policies, feel free to make the proposals but in the meantime, mass nominations for deletions in violation of those policies are the WP:POINT problems.
            Again, I'm sorry that you don't understand the value of history. I don't know how to explain it any better. But your strawman about "never delete anything" is irrelevant. First, that's not what I said and second, redirects which demonstrably create confusion or are harmful to the encyclopedia should be deleted. These don't. Until they do, our policy and precedent is to leave them be. Rossami (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am not making a point. The precedent isn't to leave them be - this nomination is finishing off the work others have done by removing nearly all of the "Wikipedia:Wikiportal/" redirects. We shouldn't keep some and delete others - we should do the same for all of them. There is consensus that they are no longer needed and should no longer exist (many were deleted last year at RfD and lots of others were speedied). If we had the same CSD rules when these were created, they would have been R3'd after the move then. Out of interest, are you against having R3 then?! Mhiji 18:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • If others were deleted in ignorance of their importance to history, that is a decision which should be undone someday. We should not perpetuate the mistake. Speedy-deletion on the basis of this argument is blatantly wrong and is disallowed under the "don't speedy things with relevant history" rule.
                On a philosophical note, speedy-deletion criterion R3 is one of the most abused criteria on the list. When it was written, the clear intent was to only allow the speedy-deletion of implausible redirects created as redirects. There was never an intent to apply that criterion to redirects created by the pagemove function except in the narrow circumstance where the original title was itself implausible and the pagemove executed within the first few edits. In general, the very fact that a page was first created at a title is evidence that the typo is plausible. If you like, you can read the many discussion threads on the topic at the time that the CSD criteria were first being proposed. In short, R3 after a pagemove is almost always an invalid speedy-deletion (though G3 may apply if the pagemove was itself an act of vandalism). Rossami (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • "Someday"? When is this day?! We should either delete this now or restore all the others now. We need to be consistent. Mhiji 19:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Church of the Theokotos[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 15:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect makes no sense. "Church of the Theotokos" is a general dedication met by thousands of churches. A redirect for this church "Theotokos Eleousa" existes already. Alex2006 (talk) 11:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-flag-100[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 15:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redundant image license template. Kelly hi! 05:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-flag-50[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 15:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redundant image license template. Kelly hi! 05:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-Originality[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 15:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image license tag, redundant to {{PD-ineligible}}, complicating trans-wiki moves. Kelly hi! 05:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:PD-user-nodisclaimers[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 15:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated unused image license. Kelly hi! 05:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. No rational is presented for the deletion of the redirect, which is linked to on many pages. Deletion would break all those links, while keeping it will do no harm. In addition, the redirect was not properly nominated. (There is no rfd banner on it.) Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated unused license template. Kelly hi! 03:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep {{PD-because}} is not deprecated, nor is it unused. The rationale is wrong. 184.144.163.241 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the template has been removed from all files at Wikipedia. And I should have been more specific about the rationale. {{PD}} is deprecated at Commons also, which is where all the PD images are being moved. This vastly complicates the task for image movers, who have to attempt to find the correct license. Far better to delete this template, so en Wikipedia image uploaders assign a correct copyright tag at the time of upload. Kelly hi! 05:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Template PD-Because is not up for deletion at all. The problem with just PD is that why is it public domain? We have to know why other than just "because it is so." Delete. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 17:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a redirect, not a template. If the target is not up for deletion, then no actual rationale for deleting the redirect has been presented. As PD is not a template, and it redirects to PD-because, there is no rationale-less template on Wikipedia. PD-because requires one. None of the arguments presented apply to PD-because, this redirects to PD because. Arguments presented for deletion talk about a "template", except this isn't a template, it is a redirect. So I don't see any rationale for deletion being presented that is actually valid, since they all talk about something that does not apply to the redirect. 184.144.161.119 (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The redirect doesn't contain a parameter for a reason, which is required for PD-because. Kelly hi! 05:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Melissa Post[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. Mhiji 18:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the purported birth name of a living porn actress who performs under a stage name. WP:BLP says that a name that a person purposely obscures for reasons of privacy should not be included unless scrupulously sourced. Even then, the example there is directly on point with this case, and calls for additional editorial discretion. But here, there's no source and it's a BLP. The redirect has been around for years. It should be deleted as soon as practicable. David in DC (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPNAME:"When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context." David in DC (talk) 03:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, absent rock-solid evidence that the redirect term actually refers to the target. bd2412 T 14:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Feminist supremacy[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 all. Double redirects should be either deleted or retargeted if there is a suitable target. There appears to be none in this case. Ruslik_Zero 15:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These were created as redirects to an article that was eventually deleted through AfD. In the course of that discussion, the creator had Gynocracy, formerly a redirect to Matriarchy, speedied so that he could move his article there, but when the article was deleted, I re-created Gynocracy as the redirect it started as. Now these four pages are both double redirects and (in spite of the blue link) redirects to a non-existent article. I left Women's supremacy et al. because they're still plausible search terms for people looking for Matriarchy, but a) no one's going to be using these b) they are an inaccurate description of the content of the article they currently redirect to. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - implausible and inaccurate redirects. Matriarchy, which Gynocracy now redirects to, has nothing to do with 'feminist superiority' or anything of the kind, and I'm not convinced these are likely search terms in any case. Robofish (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all inaccurate redirects. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep two and delete two: (I created all four.) The non-and forms are likelier to be used by people searching by disparaging terms because that's what they've heard/read (and their double-redirects should be resolved or edited to the newly-intended destination). People may search by disparaging terms innocently, and learn something as a result. The "and" forms are related to article history and no longer of much likely use. Nick Levinson (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep the more plausible ones, at least feminist supremacy, arguably also feminist superiority as section redirects to Matriarchy#As_a_feminist_project, which is the topic this user is trying to address. delete the ones inserting the unmotivated "and" (not in use, not plausible search terms). --dab (𒁳) 15:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Myth of 1939–40[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 15:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect which was created for no other purpose but to disparage one of POVs in a controversial article. Contrary to its creator's rationale, it is not an established term used in mainstream. Igny (talk) 04:36, 4 January 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_January_4&oldid=1148048137"