Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 8, 2011

-ic (disambiguation)[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 Retargeted to IC (disambiguation). Alpha Quadrant talk 01:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. The target is a soft redirect to Wiktionary, and there is nothing ambiguous about the title and nothing suitable to retarget it to that I can find. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to IC (disambiguation) which already links to wikt:-ic (although that link should probably not be to the soft redirect but directly to the Wiktionary page. Redirects are cheap, this gets slightly more than zero traffic, and has existed as a valid and linked to page in the past. Pointing to IC will be more useful and with no cost. —mako๛ 14:57, 10 September 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:WikiProject Images and Media/Commons/Drive[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. Alpha Quadrant talk 01:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) talk
Contribs 22:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Created as a result of a page move, used twice currently, redirects are cheap etc. Acather96 (talk) 18:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Agreed. I don't see the harm of keeping this away and I can imagine situations in which it helps. —mako๛ 06:16, 10 September 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.

Mark Meckler[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 16:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination; XfDs opened twice in wrong location. Rationale by Travis.Thurston (talk · contribs) is "Promotional redirect page to Tea Party Patriots".

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral but lean toward delete. Note: I created the redirect. (Lol..To explain): I based the redirect on wp:RCAT, which says to add important subjects in their appropriate categories under the redirect when appropriate.. eg, when I Google-translated the Spanish-language Wiki article for Javier Sicilia, the anti-violence activist in Mexico, I added his murdered sons name as a redirect that has the appropriate category underneath it listing notable victims of the Mexican drug war. In the present case, like say, new-journalism current-events commentators David Weigel, Conor Friedersdorf, etc., I've an interest in right wing politics and at the time, I was putting the topic of Weigel, Friedersdorf, etc., in various cats and then wanted to place some of the movers and shakers in the tea party in the appropriate cat. (As an aside, unlike either of W. or F., I'm myself more socialist than even socially liberal libertarian) ..Anyway, since this lady's organization isn't a person, I did the redirect and put the cat under that. However, I now believe such a practice may inhibit the growth of Wikipedia. Sure the exact phrase of this lady's name gets boucoup Google News hits for the last year, but if it remained a red instead of a blue link, someone would be more likely to create an actual blp about her.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC) Oops, I put this in the wrong place.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This guy is the National Chairman of the Tea Party Patriots, a notable organisation. I have added a relevant source to the article. However, it is not clear that he is separately notable so WP:RED doesn't apply. I'm sure that there is scope for more content about Meckler's role. Meanwhile, I think that the redirect, which gets a number of hits, is helpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are plenty of chairpersons of notable organizations that are not individually notable enough to have their own article. As I proposed below, if he's notable enough to have a redirect page, why not just make bio stub? --Travis Thurston+ 19:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:RED. Meckler seems likely to deserve an article or at least likely enough that I'd support deleting the redirect on those grounds. But that's the only reason I'd support deleting it. If others think that intuition is out in left field, we're better off keeping for it the reasons that Bridgeplayer has suggested above. —mako๛ 15:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The way I look at it, if you're notable enough to have a redirect you might as well take the extra step and just have an article bio stub. Otherwise, delete. --Travis Thurston+ 19:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the position is that notability isn't required for a redirect; only that there is something sufficiently informative at the target. Indeed redirectng nn people and things is quite normal; a redirect is only a search aid. The problem with deleting the redirect is that if no-one is going to writ a stub then a useful search term has been lost. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:20, 1 October 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.

Jenny Beth Martin[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. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination; XfDs opened twice in wrong location. Rationale by Travis.Thurston (talk · contribs) is "Promotional redirect page to Tea Party Patriots".

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBriTalk 18:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral but lean toward delete. Note: I created the redirect. To explain: I based the redirect on wp:RCAT, which says to add important subjects in their categories under the redirect when appropriate.. eg, when I Google-translated the Spanish-language Wiki article for Javier Sicilia, the anti-violence activist in Mexico, I added his murdered sons name as a redirect that has the appropriate category underneath it listing notable victims of the Mexican drug war. In the present case, like say, new-journalism current-events commentators David Weigel, Conor Friedersdorf, etc., I've an interest in right wing politics and at the time, I was putting the topic of Weigel, Friedersdorf, etc., in various cats and then wanted to place some of the movers and shakers in the tea party in the appropriate cat. (As an aside, unlike either of W. or F., I'm myself more socialist than even socially liberal libertarian.) Anyway, since this lady's organization isn't a person, I did her name as a redirect and put the cat under this instead. However, I now believe such a practice may inhibit the growth of Wikipedia. Sure the exact phrase of this lady's name gets boucoup Google News hits for the last year, but if it remained a red instead of a blue link, someone would be more likely to create an actual blp about her.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Because red links can help Wikipedia grow. See my comments on the discussion above. My intuition is that both these subjects are likely to get their own Wikipedia articles soon rather than later once. If they don't have them now, it seems much more like a lack of finding someone who can put together a well referenced, neutral article and not because the person is not notable. —mako๛ 15:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the two above... Either blp article (stub at a minimum) or a redlink. --Travis Thurston+ 20:03, 1 October 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.

Nimbus Littling[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 closed. The article has been restored so it is now out of scope of RfD. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of a specific fictional character redirecting to a generic article about characters where this particular character is not mentioned. I can't find a more suitable target, there is no article for the author or the related books. January (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can it be deleted with recreation prevented? It was turned into a redirect once before and they just waited a while and inserted all the copyrighted material again.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't occured frequently enough to justify WP:SALTing at this point. The user hasn't attempted to re-add it since being warned about the copyvio. January (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If there's no better place for it, that's fine. In any case, salting because the redirect is pointing to material that is copyrighted seems like a bad idea. If the material wasn't copyrighted and was appropriate in scope, it would be fine to redirect to a subsection of the article in question. Indeed, one important reason to keep the red link is because it would be nice to encourage growth. —mako๛ 02:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nowhere sensible to target. Needs to be an article or nothing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is no longer relevant. The copyrighted material has been restored with OTRS permission; see the talk page. – Adrignola talk 15:10, 20 September 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.

Mr. Punch[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 retarget. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:56, 16 October 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.

DevaintART[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. Lenticel (talk) 01:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - misspellings caused by reversing two adjacent letters are very common and the stats show plausibility. Harmless. Tag with {{R from misspelling)}}. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree that flipped-letter typos are very common, "teh" for "the", for example Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I had to look at this twice even to see the typo. It's an easy mistake to make and a hard one to see. The stats show traffic. It's doing some good, lets keep it. —mako๛ 06:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep, very likely typo. Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 19:42, 11 September 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.

Russian rickroll[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, not mentioned in the target. No prejudice for recreation should the target explain it. - Nabla (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. No evidence that this term's widely used for Trololo. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the term is not used in the target, so confusing, and I can't find reliable sources for this connection. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The redirect gets traffic -- not a lot but a few hits nearly every day. A google search for the term shows links to at least one popular site (Know Your Meme) where it Trololo is unambiguously described as "Russian rickroll". This is something at least some people are actually searching for and this is clearly the best possible place for it to point. —mako๛ 06:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - these are good points but, I regret, that I still draw the counter conclusion. The purpose of a redirect is to take the reader to information about a topic on which they want to know more. So a reader, having come across the term 'Russian rickroll' on the Internet, types it into the search box and is taken to 'Eduard Khil' where they find that the term is not mentioned let alone explained. Thus the reader is left confused; something that we should avoid. Even refining the target to point at the 'Trololo' section only helps if you already know the connection. When we have nothing to say about something I think that we should be careful not imply that we have. If useful, reliably sourced, content is added then I should be happy to change my recommendation to 'keep'. At present, though, I think that 'delete' is still the appropriate action. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - All reasonable points. But I also think there's more than enough reliable sources out there to amend the Trololo section to include a reference to the term "Russian rickroll" which would both improve that section and make the redirect less confusing. —mako๛
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.

Ryan Rose (Sports broadcaster)[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 19:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - target does not contain even so much as the person's name. The only page that links to it is Ryan Rose, so there's not much point in mentioning it there. The only history is the creation of the redirect. Bobogoobo (talk) 05:54, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no coverage in the target so confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:15, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - better as a redlink. The current situation is unworkable and there doesn't seem to be an obvious better place to point it. —mako๛ 06:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I originally created it was because articles that want to link to Ryan Rose (the sports broadcaster) were linking to the unrelated Ryan Rose. I don't especially care if the redirect is deleted ... but it would be nice if we had a technical means to accommodate warning an editor not to link to Ryan Rose when they mean the broadcaster. --B (talk) 13:17, 16 September 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_September_8&oldid=1136083398"