Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 5, 2012

Wide left[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. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD clearly had consensus to delete the entire history and not leave a redirect, as this play has never been called "Wide left" in the media. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notably, the term is used in reference to this event, very notably in these and other articles: [1], [2], [3]. It is used in many more; these are just the first few examples, and it is impractical to list them all. Redirects are cheap, and there should not be such a fuss over this. There is no battle over using this for other articles or redirects. There are reasons for keeping under WP:R#KEEP nos. 1, 3, and 5. It has a potentially useful history (1), would aid in searches (3), and some people find this useful (5). Hellno2 (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, these articles are using the way the ball went as creative titles, they are not outright saying "the play shall be called 'Wide left.'" There are many, many other missed kicks that went wide left, and this one is not particularly notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article title describing something (or a redirect for that matter, which is not held to the same standards as an article) does not necessarily identify something in the same way as its official name. WP:TITLE goes into that. It is quite complex. But in this case, it is not the title of something; it is a targeted redirect. It is a name that, though it may not be the official name, has been shown in numerous sources to be associated with the event, which is a valid reason for a redirect. This redirect has not been shown to meet any of the criteria for deleting. Hellno2 (talk) 05:40, 6 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.

Natty J[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 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article, no google hits and very few pageviews to suggest this is an actual abbreviation, let alone a commonly-used one. – hysteria18 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete while no search hits hit it, the sooner the better. Si Trew (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it is a nickname used in the offices of National Journal, it probably isn't one meant for public consumption. So I have no objection to its deletion. hare j 04:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence that this is a commonly-used phrase or even one used outside of the NJ's own offices. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:22, 13 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.

Wall Street Putsch[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 posible search term. The question of whether the name should appear in the linked article's lede is a question for that talk page, not here.--Salix (talk): 13:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - the term was never in any common usage, and the redirect is being used as a reason for adding this implausible name to the article lede. One newspaper article in 1934 used it, other than that it is only used by a single author (Sally Denton) with a book just issued in 2012 and an article promoting her book. Redirects used for book promotion are non-good Collect (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now as harmless. Not sure. I am sure I have heard the term but am not sure where, but I think "Wall Street Putsch" was used by an author at the time, perhaps in the New York Times. I shall try to look it up and find a reference. Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only used by Sally Denton in a brand-new book. One single use in the 30s using archive search, but that is it. She is currently promoting her book as being relevant to the anti-Wall Street sentiment in vogue, as the folks accused were with the American Legion! Collect (talk) 22:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Article mentions several times various putsches, by Teddy Roosevelt and so on. Does not mention specifically Wall Street. But I think a likely search term for now. I will try to find better for Wall Street Putsch in particular. Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indented as second !vote Collect (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second thoughts Not to delete the article or anything, but perhaps it is really sitting under the wrong title and should be moved? But I can't think right now where to. Si Trew (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is plenty of documented evidence that powerful figures on Wall Street were behind a plot to overthrow the White House and FDR. If you allow 'White House Putsch'; it should also be permissible to title it the 'Wall Street Putsch' for obvious reasons. why don't u go over the Dickstein-McCormack Hearings and see the Wall Street names for yourself? duPont, Morgan and the American Liberty League...made up of the biggest names on Wall Street. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/McCormack-Dickstein_Committee#Testimony_of_Maj._Gen._S._D._Butler_.28Retired.29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 03:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum to Keep just rec'd this message from Sally Denton, Wall Street Journal journalist who wrote "The Plots Against the President: FDR, a nation in crisis. and the rise of the American right". She wrote: "The phrase was used repeatedly in contemporaneous news accounts. Which is where I first saw it. Probably also in Nicholas Fox Weber's "The Clarks of Cooperstown" and in Archer and Spivak." If you would like further citations, let me know and I shall dig further. (or perhaps we should call it the "American Liberty League putsch"?...since that apparently was the key group behind this event at this point in our history.

This honor's thesis seems very well documented and the term "Wall Street Putsch" is used 5 times. http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=etd_hon_theses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per the nomination. Additionally I think it is inappropriate to have multiple votes by one editor and a series of unsigned votes. What the heck?Capitalismojo (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply...please consider my nomination and comments as one vote. I am not all that familiar with your system of suggesting accurate Redirects. I submit that, and would hope that you agree, the "Business Plot" heading is far too generic and non-descriptive. Which Businesses and who was behind the plot to overthrow FDR? "Wall Street Putsch" is much more accurate in that regard. According to Wall St Journal and business writer and historian, Sally Denton, the phrase was in contemporaneous use at the time. I would hope that your editors would engage in some research to validate or not. This aired on NPR today...perhaps this will help...http://www.npr.org/2012/02/12/145472726/when-the-bankers-plotted-to-overthrow-fdr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects exist to serve the readers. If there is any chance that someone might search for this phrase then it should be kept. Since a book using that term is getting significant attention, that threshold is met. And yes, I heard the end of the interview on NPR too, by chance, and heard the phrase used there.   Will Beback  talk  07:26, 14 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.

UKCOUNTRYREFS[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--Salix (talk): 13:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was originally created as WP:UKCOUNTRYREFS. It was then moved to the main space. It's purpose is to emulate a Wikipedia project namespace short link (for use in talk page discussions etc. as [[UKCOUNTRYREFS]]) but it appears in the main space. Consequently it is an impossibly implausible search term that should not be in the encyclopedia. RA (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as cross namespace redirect. Serves no useful purpose. Probably a very innocent mistake. Si Trew (talk) 17:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess this is more of a housekeeping procedure.--Lenticel (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't assume it's trivial tho. The redirect relates to a heated subject for UK-based editors. I am involved in the matter (which is how I came across the redirect). I agree it is a simple housekeeping tasks, and was created innocently, however, it could blow up. I suggest the closing admin does so with consensus. --RA (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, hope this would pass quietly though.--Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice - yes I do have something to say. You are more than involved RA - so why do it? The designed-to-be-quick 'UKCOUNTRYREFS' has been useful on many occasions in the past - despite your occasional attempts to physically hide from view the information it links to (and all the work done to prove to a painfully small group of committed people that Wales, Northern Ireland etc are indeed called "countries" as a matter of daily fact - whether you personally like the non-sovereign usage or not). It's helped save hours of endlessly repeating the same debate to the various types of trolls that pop up every now and again (you know, in your 'middle' period when you were just an IP of ambiguous interest - so I guess you may not remember it, despite it being well in your singular topic area until you became an admin). And the same goes for British Isles - keep out the politics. Wikipedia has NO PLACE in controlling the use of such common-use terminology. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:32, 10 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.

Hindu temples in Cuddalore district[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 cross namespace redirect. There may be a case for creating a List of article.--Salix (talk): 13:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary page. the page redirects to Category:Hindu temples in Cuddalore district RaviMy Tea Kadai 05:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect out of article space. --RA (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see also talk page before making decision, at talk, he is working very hard on a series of articles about Hindu temples. A very good Wikipedian. I have never known him before but a pleasure to see another contributor to Wikipedia trying to do his (?) best to make Wikipedia better. Si Trew (talk) 17:12, 5 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_5&oldid=1145830069"