Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1
May 3 >

May 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 2, 2011

Obama bin Laden[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.. The Helpful One 10:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(links to redirect • history • stats) 

This is a redirect which was created based upon a single local Fox news station minor reporting of it, and then after it was speedily deleted additional evidence was provided in the form of original research that the editor found a case where the typo was used. This is questionable in terms of establishing reliable sources for notability for such a non-neutral redirect. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 23:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep redirect: It's more than the Fox news station. BTW that source is Mercer, Brandon M. "Osama v. Obama: One-Letter Mistake Strikes Multiple Networks and TV Stations." KTXL-TV. May 2, 2011.
It has also appeared on websites (as a typo), i.e. Provence, Lisa. "Obama kills Osama: Mixed reactions to bin Laden assassination." The Hook. Monday May 2, 2011. (EDIT: It was fixed)
"Joyous crowds gathered at the White House in response to the news that Obama bin Laden was dead."
Other sources are now reporting on the typo:
"'Obama bin Laden dead': Fox News typo causes Twitter storm." Metro. May 2, 2011.
Franich, Darren. "Fox News affiliate reports: 'Obama Bin Laden Dead'." Entertainment Weekly.
Jebaraj, Priscilla. "Obama vs. Osama: what's in a name?" The Hindu.
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: understandable typo in a search term.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the one who deleted one of the redirects, I have to say a reluctant keep but as a separate article about the news gaffes or an internet meme. Google estimates 4 million hits! On further investigation this boils down to a few hundred including some amusing bits of photoshopping. But this is possibly enough to indicate notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep people keep unintentionally mixing the two words up, therefore a very likely typo. Did you notice the on-air personalities yesterday that kept doing it from every part of the political spectrum? (Not just right-wing commentators doing it deliberately) 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Osama bin Laden, if this is kept as a redirect, it needs to be locked onto Osama bin Laden. Jsut look at the history to see why. Abductive (reasoning) 07:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • should be {{Misspelling|Osama bin Laden}} --Akkakk (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this isn't just an accidental mispelling of Osama's name, it was actually a common epithet used against Obama by right-wing nuts, at least during the 2008 election. 169.231.77.62 (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But this isn't a redirect to Barack Obama. It's a redirect to Osama bin Laden, and a plausible mispelling. A previous deleted version was a redirect to Barack Obama and was used in an "attack" manner. This is NOT the case here. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly: This misspelling is more than ordinary, so per WP:NOT#BATTLEFIELD and WP:BLP this should either be a protected redirect or not exist at all (and be salted). Abductive (reasoning) 19:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is an ordinary misspelling, as established by other posts. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#HARMFUL. This is a misspelling that has been made deliberately to be offensive toward Obama. The only way I can see it being kept is if it redirects to an article describing how this misspelling is used offensively. It is implausible that one would enter this term looking either for Barack Obama or Osama bin Laden, the two persons the term is associated with. Note that I have added both cases "bin" and "Bin" to this nomination. Shaliya waya (talk) 01:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is very likely that people looking for Osama bin Laden will enter this accidentally, since people keep doing it, just look at recent coverage, where everyone from everywhere in the political spectrum was doing it. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • All the more reason to delete this redirect.. otherwise people won't know that they made the same stupid mistake again! Maybe this time they'll finally get it right! ;) -- œ™ 09:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • So you'll be nominating every redirect in Category:Redirects from misspellings on the same grounds then will you? Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Naw, just this one. -- œ™ 16:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • So why is this one different? Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just another clear case of "I don't like it".--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • This is not a matter of personal dislike. The similarities between "Obama" and "Osama" have been widely noted. With all the hatred against Obama in our society, and all the people who like to label him a terrorist, this similarity has been used against him. The only way I can imagine anyone entering "Obama bin Laden" is either to intentionally show their disdain for Obama or just for the heck of it. The only people I can imagine saying or typing "Obama bin Laden" by mistake are those who hate Obama so much they have this term mentally ingrained. Wikipedia is not a place to support this hatred. Shaliya waya (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • To claim that because individuals accidentally confuse two names in the news that sound similar, that they somehow are full of hatred, is absurd beyond words. This is the worst example of assuming bad faith.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Some people do mix up the names by accident, some on purpose. Those who do it on purpose include some racist Obama-haters. There are secondary sources that confirm that there are racists who hate Obama, and compare him to Osama. These racists should not be given any comfort on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 03:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Except most of those who make the mistake are not doing so deliberately (due to racism or otherwise) and these people should not be disadvantaged. The presence of a redirect does not imply endorsement or acceptance of the term any more than our having an article on racism implies we endorse racism. Thryduulf (talk) 07:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Did you even watch the coverage of the death of bin Laden? Did you not notice how many LIBERAL reporters and commentators said "Obama bin Laden" by mistake? TOTALLY BY MISTAKE, not some attack on Obama, just a basic error? Seems like you're making very bad assumptions about who uses this term. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is also a search term which could plausibly be entered by those looking for articles within which both Barrack Obama and Osama bin Laden are mentioned, i.e. the article on bin Laden's death. gz33 (talk) 08:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#DELETE #3, it's an attack redirect. It's easy to make the obama/osama mistake in speech but typing it is quite different: "b" and "s" are far enough apart on the keyboard. -- œ™ 09:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • People navigate to Wikipedia using non-QWERTY keyboards and text-to-speech utilities among other methods. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good point. -- œ™ 16:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because they use the name "Obama" so often, some people, without thinking, say or even type "Obama" when referring to a similar sounding term.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, the example is of a case where it is unambiguously an attack title, i.e. " "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs" " - Because "Obama bin Laden" is a plausible misspelling of "Osama bin Laden" (it's just one letter), it's not unambiguously an attack title. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I still think it's a pretty dumb mistake to make when typing. It's as silly as Barack Osama. People searching for bin laden's article aren't likely to type "Obama bin Laden" in full anyway. In fact that's how I found this redirect, when I deliberately made the mistake just to see if some prankster actually created it. I was expecting to be shown the search screen, because "Obama bin Laden" is immaturity I expected Wikipedia to be above. This is one typo we shouldn't be perpetuating. -- œ™ 16:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Our redirects do not perpetuate anything. We are are in the business of providing encyclopaedia articles about encyclopaedic subjects, thus we want people to find our articles. One way we do this is to provide redirects from likely alternative titles - including from likely misconceptions, common misnomers, common typographical errors, plausible but incorrect titles (including non-NPOV ones (see WP:RNEUTRAL), nicknames (official and otherwise), significant memes, and other scenarios. This is a [i]very[/i] common error that has attracted significant discussion in reliable sources - it would not surprise me if an encyclopaedia article could be written about the term. Attack redirects are only those that have no possible other use than to attack the target, which is clearly not the case here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTCENSORED People confuse the two words, which is a different kind of mispelling from fumbly fingers. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a very common error and likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I had seen this discussion a few days ago, but opted not to get involved until now—because I myself was trying to go to the Osama bin Laden page just now and accidentally typoed it as Obama bin Laden.OCNative (talk) 14:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't be surprised if muscle memory plays a part in this - I expect many people, particularly Americans, have cause to type "Obama" far more often than theytype "Osama". Thryduulf (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OCNative, your first instinct wasn't to type just "bin laden" in the search box? or simply "osama"? Okay then.. maybe I'm wrong, but answer me this.. when making that typo, were you not glad you were taken to this page where you realized your error? Because otherwise you would've just been redirected to bin laden's article and stayed ignorant of your mistake all due to Wikipedia's 'helpfulness'! ;P ..yes I know, other misspellings exist, but like I said, this one is just dumb dumb dumb.. -- œ™ 14:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • My experience with redirects is that I'm far happier when I'm just taken to the page I intended to go to, rather than being confronted with an RfD template or a search box. I was originally going to start this comment by saying that I've never knowingly used this redirect, which is kind of the point about these sorts of redirects - it is of no benefit to me at all for Wikipedia to shout at me that I'm making a spelling error (the quiet note at the top "redirect from" is more than sufficient). In all contexts where it is important for me to get the right spelling I will have spelling checkers and proofreading to flag up a mistake. Wikipedia should always strive to make it easier for readers to find the article they want to read, not harder - how would deleting this redirect achieve that goal? Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I generally agree to that, and concede that it should be kept.. you may have noticed my overall tone on this is that of not really taking this whole thing seriously. There is one other problem I have with these misspelling redirects though.. those instances when they are linked on a page. It does make it hard for copy-editors to notice them.. and when links such as Obama bin Laden are blue on a page, the same obama/osama confusion can enable it to be hidden well, both mistakenly and deliberately! -- œ™ 15:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • It does make it slightly harder for copyeditors, but the needs of readers are more important than the needs of editors. I had not noticed that you were not taking this seriously, and wonder why you would do that? Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right from the beginning when I found this page I thought it silly that it exists. But as to whether it's eventually kept or deleted I really have no strong feelings on that either way. -- œ™ 00:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • OE, I generally type in the first and last name of a person when searching for someone in Wikipedia or Google. I probably picked up the habit from Facebook as a lot of my friends have common first and/or last names or from my academic studies as many politicians have similar names (Theodore & Franklin Roosevelt, Andrew & Lyndon Johnson, Andrew Jackson & Johnson).
                I would have been glad to have been sent to this page if I didn't know how to spell Osama bin Laden; however, since this was just a typo and I actually know how to spell (and generally do correctly spell) Osama bin Laden, I would rather just get to the page; it annoyed me enough to get me to comment on this discussion, which I had seen but originally a few days ago but wanted to stay out of.
                In terms of dealing with the problems for copy-editors, there is the Special:WhatLinksHere/Obama bin Laden option.
                Thryduulf, I think your muscle memory comment hits the nail on the head! I do have to type President Obama's name far more often than Osama bin Laden's name. That's why the Obama bin Laden redirect makes since while the Barack Osama one would not.
                If this redirect is kept, it should be protected from editing to ensure no one abuses the redirect by sending it to Barack Obama. OCNative (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very common verbal mistake, so it is also probably a common typing mistake as well. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I just did it, accidentally. That's how I got here. I think in my case I was quickly typing the first name while at the same time thinking of the next name "bin", and needing to type a "b" for that soon, it triggered the habit of my fingers typing the familiar "Obama". Happened quick, but I think thats what was going on. Im a poor speller anyway, who knows? But I did do it, for what its worth.--Racerx11 (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Emancipation Of Mimi Billboard 200 chart trajectory[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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:01, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search team, and not useful for one who might because that information will not be found on Wikipedia per WP:CHARTTRAJ. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cycling at the 1930 British Empire Games[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 speedily deleted by Athaenara per WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell there wasn't a cycling event at these games. Misleading redirect. Closedmouth (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it appears that I got a bit over enthusiastic there. Delete. SFB 12:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Audiokinesis[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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intended target removed from article in this 2006 edit. No incoming links, almost zero through traffic, this redirect only serves to confuse readers. Closedmouth (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating the following for the same reasons:
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Complete bibliography of Gordon R. Dickson[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded. Are we going to have (e.g.) Accurate history of Algeria? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This documents a very recent page move and so in addition to maintaining the attribution requirements of the GFDL, there is no chance that any external links will have been able to update to the new location, and users will still be looking for it at the old location. Your comment about Algeria is a straw man, the article has never been at that title. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a likely search/link term per Thryduulf. Monty845 00:22, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Taking the matter into your own hands[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 Soft redirect to wiktionary —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was PRODded, administrative nomination since PRODs aren't for redirects. I happen to agree with the rationale--I do not see "Masturbation" as any more appropriate a target than, say, vigilantism might be. Jclemens (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create a dab page or soft redirect to wikt:take matters into one's own hands where the masturbation and vigilantism definitions can be added if they meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. It gets 10-12 hits in a typical month, but got 43 in April so it's obviously worth having something here. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't need a soft redirect or dab page for every innuendo. That's what urbandictionary is for. —Кузьма討論 08:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are other, far more common, uses for the idiom than the inuendo sense. People are looking for something here that Wiktionary is able to provide better than we can - so why not help them find it? Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 18 May 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 (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lube noob[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. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete disputed prod (with a bitey prod removal). We already have a redirect from noob, and this adds a term to "noob", which means newbie, while "lube noob" is not just a newbie, it is a type not documented at the target. There's no need for this, since if you enter noob, you get to the right page. There is no usage of this term from Google. What there is is "noob lube", "chain lube noob", and "anal lube noob", but not "lube noob". 65.93.12.8 (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A number of those hits on Google are to "lube noob" without including other words. Reasons #2, #3, and #5 of WP:RFD#KEEP all support keeping this redirect, plus redirects are cheap. The only justification cited by the anon nominator is #8 of WP:RFD#DELETE, but that is refuted by actually clicking on the Google link the nominator used, as it shows people due use "lube noob" as a term. On a side note, I find it odd that this anon user's 11th edit is to propose this redirect for deletion; the anon user was around for only 40 minutes before making this proposal. OCNative (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. It also has a decent number of hits on any given day. OCNative (talk) 04:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From traffic from people viewing various deletion discussions, no doubt. 65.93.12.8 (talk) 10:32, 2 May 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_May_2&oldid=1138577858"