Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 14, 2012

Аҟəа[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 18:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The third letter in the redirect's title is U+0259 ə LATIN SMALL LETTER SCHWA, not U+04D9 ә CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER SCHWA. The other letters are Cyrillic. It is vanishingly unlikely that anyone should use this redirect. I propose deletion. Gorobay (talk) 17:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: this redirect has uncommon characters, which itself suggests that it would be used by a limited amount of people who are able to type this. I would presume that such readers know the difference between cyrillic and latin schwa. The blow noise level hits count reveals that my presumption is pretty valid. Interestingly, the correct form (Аҟәа) doesn't exist at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is this an artifact of the same mixed-keyboard layouts described in Википедиja above? Rossami (talk) 07:28, 17 February 2012 (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.

Choosing a horse[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 18:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely and rarely used search term. Goes against WP:NOTHOWTO. France3470 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral: I would say that this redirect is close to the best practice, as the search term makes sense and the target is relevant. That said, the redirect's hits count is below the noise level, so it may be safely deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per User:France3470.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 65.94.76.224 (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2012 (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.

Emo redirects[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 Emo(girls) delete other two. Former has significant number of hits, other two virtually none.--Salix (talk): 14:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirects which are unlikely and little used search terms. Emo(girls) is highly implausible due to the spacing and use of a bracketed term. "Emogirl tomboy" appears to be a slang term and "Emo Texan" seems to be a song title (haven't been able to find any other usages). Neither mentioned in article.France3470 (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep 'Emo(girls)' and 'Emogirl tomboy' because they were created in order to merge and preempt content that was originally created at those two titles. Redirects to resolve article-forks are a preferred solution. They have both been around since 2007 without incident or confusion. No opinion on 'Emo Texan'. Rossami (talk) 04:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Emogirl tomboy (not used, implausible) and Emo Texan (not used, unrelated), but keep Emo(girls) (heavily used, probably linked off-site). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'Emo(girls)' due to usage, Delete other two. A412 (Talk * C) 02:49, 16 February 2012 (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.

Frothy mixture[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 BLP concerns outweigh other arguments--Salix (talk): 13:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that as this is a general term it ought to be redirected to Emulsion, but another editor and Google think the neologism is more likely. Perhaps a disambiguation, or a hatnote on Campaign for "santorum" neologism? Josh Parris 01:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it. What an idiotic redirect. Be——Critical 01:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very vague redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is the inverse of a non-notable neologism created by columnist Dan Savage in 2010 lampooning US Senator Rick Santorum. (See wikt:santorum for more.) A google search for the phrase "frothy mixture" in combination with Santorum returns a mere 650 non-duplicative hits (though a manual review shows that many even of that number are duplicative and more are derivative of the Wikipedia page). This pejorative did not catch on and does not rise even to the low level of standards we set for redirects. Further, it is actively confusing since most uses of that phrase are talking about a normal bubbly liquid. A retarget to a page like emulsion would be less bad but not all froths are technically emulsions. Since it is a common phrase with no technical meaning, our readers would be best served by nothing at this title. Rossami (talk) 01:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why I was thinking perhaps a dab page. There are possibilities for Frothy mixture, but going straight to the neologism doesn't seem quite right. Josh Parris 02:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. This is not a "general term," it's an attempt to "spread" the santorum neologism all over the place. Virtually nobody is going to be searching for this term without already knowing Santorum's name. The existence of the page is at best POINTy, and at worst a big SOAPBOX. Also, preemptively salt Lube and fecal matter for precisely the same reason. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 04:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observe - both the creation and nom seem a little WP:POINT-y, as obscure redirects are almost completely inconsequential, and there are already several proxies running simultaneously on the battles between the pro and anti spreadingsantorum.com coverage content question. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As the nom, I'd like to know what point you perceive I'm trying to make. This is a discussion, and I never mentioned deletion. I have no strong feeling on this, but I'm not convinced that the present target is an appropriate one. Have I acted like I'm on one side of this brushfire or another? I'm trying to remain objective and neutral. I'm a disambigutor by trade and I've stuck my head in on RfD in the past; none of this is new ground and I feel I have detached experience to offer. Josh Parris 06:23, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all emulsions are frothy and not all frothy mixtures are emulsions. But the phrase 'frothy mixture', referring to the attempt to take over the surname of one particular US politician, is sometimes used without obvious context and readers unfamiliar with it might not understand it, so I think the redirect is helpful. I entirely disagree with Zenswashbuckler on this point; not everyone is knowledgable about US politics going back nine years especially as new people are being drawn to the contenders in the Presidential election. The main reason for creating it was that it had previously been pointed at the former Senator's biography, which violates several of our alphabet soup policies. Pointing at the article about the campaign seems appropriate and neutral. It may not be the most important issue in the universe but I do think it is a redirect which helps the casual reader who comes across an unfamiliar term used in a knowing, in-joke sort of way. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, paint and beer head are excellent examples of why emulsion is a poor target. But it's a little surprising to type frothy mixture into the search box and find oneself on an article about lube and fecal matter; at best a single example of a frothy mixture. Josh Parris 12:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the page about this neologism or its creator would be appropriate, but as there is no such now, this item would be better removed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a Google search for "frothy mixture" and the first three pages of results (I didn't look further) all seemed to be either explicit or implicit references to the neologism. I do think that someone who searches for that term is much more likely to be seeking the neologism than the generic concept of a mixture that is frothy, or any other specific frothy mixture. Theoldsparkle (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep, but rename the redirect to frothy mix as a very well-used alternative that has been used in news article titles. Google this entire phrase in quotes, "Rick Santorum wants Google to take down 'frothy mix' definition" and Google returns 1600 results, which is quite high for a 10 word exact phrase search. If someone looks on WP and asks "what is this headline talking about?" we should provide an answer. Frothy mix is a MSM allusion to what they otherwise would not print or say, which may make it more well-used in real sources than the word itself. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • I don't think there's much point in redirecting a redirect - are you saying you think there should be another redirect at Frothy mix? Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, or duplicate. I think "frothy mixture" is a less likely search term than "frothy mix", which was evidenced by news headlines that used "frothy mix". SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Keep and rename per Schmucky. "frothy mix" in quotes gets 104,000 results, and the first result is spreadingsantorum. This should be revisited when most people typing those words would not be looking for the santorum neologism article. Be——Critical 19:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. We shouldn't promote another neologism from Savage's campaign et al. until it becomes notable in its own right. Deryck C. 18:05, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I don't buy the contention that a search for "Santorum" should be disambiguated because of "honest" searches for the neologism. Even if there were a significant number of such searches there are strong policy reasons for refusing to support a campaign to deliberately create ambiguity. The deliberation creation of ambiguity confuses policy and impedes the orderly classification of information. Having said that I'd concede that someone typing "frothy mixture of..." is likely "honest"ly interested in the neologism and so should see that result. I say "weak" keep because the typical single search per day is so low.--Brian Dell (talk) 20:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete you add a frothy mixture of stuff on top of alot of coffees, and milkshakes are frothy mixtures. 65.92.182.149 (talk) 07:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate Make into a DAB between Campaign for "santorum" neologism, emulsion, and foam. Still a somewhat likely search term. A412 (Talk * C) 19:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This link constitutes a BLP violation by attaching "frothy mixture", in Wikipedia's voice, with Sanctorum. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think a newcomer to, for instance, Daily Kos or Wonkette might come across the term used as a reference to Santorum and be uncertain as to its meaning. – hysteria18 (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, too generic a term to redirect to a single instance of its use.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I note that when you do a search within Wikipedia for either frothy mix or frothy mixture, the relevant pages come up in the top results. So it's not like this redirect really serves that big a demographic of people who both haven't heard what's up with S/santorum yet, and are simultaneously unlazy enough to search for it in Wikipedia but also too lazy to actually hit the "search" button when the autocomplete doesn't bring it up for them. And who knows, maybe people will discover a sincere curiosity about calcium alginate or frappé coffee when they scroll down past santorum. Just sayin'. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 15:32, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Disambiguate This redirect represents a part of US history. It has to do with the criticism of a candidate for US President. It is notable subject matter, many people may be interested in ridicule & criticism of presidential candidates. The term has significance, it does have some value. If there is some value to a bit of knowledge, there is no reason to delete it. By accusing the definition of the neologism of being "publicizing" the neologism , curiosity publicizes. Having this term defined clearly for those interested in it will lead people to the origins of the term, the controversy with a political candidate for a very important political office. This is in relation to an (whether you like it or not) important person in history. It has relevance, it has value. Censorship is censorship, whether it is censorship of criticism, praise, or neutral information. If you're REALLY concerned of a "frothy mixture" being confused with something else, clarify in the redirect, or have it not automatic. "Frothy Mixture" neologism / Rick Santorum. This is truly the ONLY time I have ever heard this term used, thus, I can support it as being a notable usage, with some historical worth. --Kyanwan (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete  Part of a licentious political campaign, Wikipedia is not a battleground.  As per WP:FRINGE, "Wikipedia is not and must not become the validating source for non-significant subjects."  See also, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.  I'm not seeing any need to salt.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Yet another sad attempt to use the Wikipedia to further the aims of the Dan Savage campaign. There is no good-faith reason to retain a term such as this for a redirect for any living person. Tarc (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It isn't a redirect for a living person. It's a redirect to a neutral article about an unusual political campaign. Your personal dislike of the campaign is neither here nor there in this debate and I ask you not to speculate about motives, especially since you are on this occasion erroneous. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Personal attack removed) Second, while not a redirect to a living person directly, it is a redirect to a concocted slur of that living person's name. So, as they say, "same difference". Redirects such as this, just like "TOTUS" (teleprompter of the United States) once redirected to Barack Obama, are created not to aid the reader in finding an article but rather to facilitate an agenda. Tarc (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2012 (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/2012_February_14&oldid=1138578170"