Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 25, 2011

Tony Bliar[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. G10 does not seem to apply here as the title is a plausible misspelling. Jafeluv (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect intended only to disparage the subject of the article. Essentially a G10 candidate in my view, but given the prominence of this nickname I'm going to bring it here for discussion rather than axe it myself. Even if the nickname might be widely used (and therefore sourceable) our use of it as a redirect is an implicit statement of its encylopaedic acceptability and legitimacy as an alternative name for the subject. Mkativerata (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Highly probable typo. High hit count. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as all of a common typo, a highly used redirect, and a notable appellation. See WP:RNEUTRAL for a refutation of the second part of the nomination statement. Thryduulf (talk) 23:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No - RNEUTRAL does not authorise redirects disparaging living persons. See g10. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:CSD#G10: "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose." (emphasis mine). In this case it clearly serves another purpose - that of being a redirect from a common typo and a redirect from a name that is notable and discussed in reliable sources (e.g. [1]). Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep typos should be redirects. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably best practice to document sources on the redirect's talk page in cases like this. 74.74.150.139 (talk) 18:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? It's just a transposition of letters. Took me a minute to see what the insult was supposed to be. As an insult it's not really redirect worthy even if sourced, but you don't need sources to know that it's a very plausible typo. 169.231.52.208 (talk) 05:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a well sourced redirect. I do think keeping sources on the talk page makes sense for disparaging redirects. Hobit (talk) 18:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I think the nominator's rationale was that the spelling "Bliar" is a pejorative nickname for Blair, purposely transposing the letters to spell "LIAR". However, some people appear to have missed this and assumed that it was created just in case someone accidentally mis-spelled Blair. While I doubt that was the intention behind it's creation, it does bring up the issue of whether or not it is common practice to have re-directs for potential typos. I don't know whether that is one of the common uses of a redirect, plus having this redirect exist enables people to deliberately use the pejorative deliberate mis-spelling in links etc. MsBatfish (talk) 11:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Typos are one of the principle purposes of redirects, we classify them along with other likely spelling errors in Category:Redirects from misspellings, which currently has over 12,000 pages (and not all are tagged). Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes we have redirects from typos and misspellings. One of my first RfD's was to try to get a misspelling deleted so that it wouldn't show up as blue to editors when previewed and therefore would be corrected. But that one was kept. --198.137.20.91 (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, if the title is sourced, having the redirect is generally seems to be acceptable (per discussion on the Speedy talk page). Hobit (talk) 21:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is absolutely OK to have this redirect with the specific intention to call Tony Blair a liar. This misuse of Blair's name is wide in media. The linking issue should be regarded as a side benefit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Another alternative could be to make a section in the Tony Blair article on the use of this nickname, perhaps under "Relationship with media" or somewhere, which cites examples of Blair being called "Bliar" by the media and/or public, then have the redirect target to that section? (If necessary, the section could even have a hatnote stating something like, "Tony Bliar" directs here, if you were looking for general information about the former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, please see Tony Blair" (with "Tony Blair" linking to an anchor at the top of the article)). MsBatfish (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mkativerata has misused G10 in the past to delete redirects such as Scam Newton, so this is possibly a bad-faith nomination --198.137.20.91 (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Misspelling redirects are allowed, attack page spelling redirects are not. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:54, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I notice Carter-Fuck is an {{R to section}} to Carter-Ruck. Either the "pejorative" argument falls on that count, or those or many others should be removed. I think the argument about pejorative names is false of itself, without prejudice of whether this particular R stays or goes. Si Trew (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a {{R to section}} at Carter-Fuck and put a courtesy note on its target at Carter-Ruck#Cristicism. I don't think this prejudices the RfD either way, just a bit of tidying up on my part. Si Trew (talk) 05:10, 3 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_November_25&oldid=1039427789"