Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 11, 2013.

Why Isn't There a Nobel Prize in Mathematics[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/move without redirect to Talk:Nobel Prize/Why Isn't There a Nobel Prize in Mathematics. WJBscribe (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward title, points to a section which does not exist. Even if the section did exist, this is still too unlikely to be useful. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP#1 or the move and delete described in Comment below. This is an article that was merged and redirected pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why Isn't There a Nobel Prize in Mathematics. Assuming some content was merged then this redirect would need to be kept for GFDL reasons. This applies even if the content has since been removed since content in the history is always liable to be restored. There are alternative methods of preserving the history but the pragmatic approach is to leave things be. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ; the article history should be moved to a different title, usually this would be a talk page history subpage. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:57, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't see any real application of WP:NOTFAQ. I have no objection to protecting the history with a talk page subpage creation but a straight delete would not do that. It needs to be a move to a talk page subpage then delete. There would also need to be a link from the talk page. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mathematics isn't mentioned at all at the target page, except in a See also item on another prize that does cover mathematics. As such, I wouldn't exactly say this is an unlikely search term, but it's better left to Google. There are all sorts of frivolous redirects that could follow this example, such as Why Does My Shower Curtain Blow In to Shower-curtain effect (that was a real Google search suggestion). --BDD (talk) 16:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, OK but which method to protect the history do you prefer? The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. If the decision to delete is made as the result of a deletion discussion (i.e. this one), the history can go. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this raises an interesting policy point. If the article is simply deleted without preserving the history in some form then my understanding, and I'm happy to be corrected, is that, since content has been merged, then there would be a breach of GFDL. However, we can look at that further if/when the need arises. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there's more nuance than I realized. It looks like after the 2005 AfD, some merging did occur, as Tomas e noted below. I don't think our attribution policy is clear on what happens in cases like this, where Foo is merged into Bar and eventually all traces of Foo are removed from Bar. There isn't a {{merged from}} or {{copied}} at Talk:Nobel Prize, and the difference in wording on those templates is striking. {{copied}} says the merged page "must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists." Is that still true if there's effectively no content to attribute?
I came across Wikipedia talk:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution for removed content. It's old and informal, but it does make me think the subpage solution JohnCD implemented there would work best. Apologies, TWW—it looks like that's what you were talking about all along. I just hadn't heard of such a thing before. So yes, I think we could move to Talk:Nobel Prize/Why Isn't There a Nobel Prize in Mathematics and delete this redirect. Page history is retained, a misleading redirect dies, and we all happily ride off into the sunset together. Sound like a plan? --BDD (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's certainly a sound plan and, though not that common, it's a solution adopted from time to time. In addition to the steps mentioned there also needs to be a link to the sub-page from the talk page. As indicated in my comment of 12 October, and my subsequent additional action, its a way forward that I'm perfectly content with. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Whispering Wind above. Frivolous or not, it was merged following an AfD. Tomas e (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move/delete, this question isn't tackled by Wikipedia any more, people shouldn't be tricked into thinking it does. Siuenti (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2013 (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.

Barack Soetero[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 and salt. WJBscribe (talk) 22:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obama is not known by this name. If anything, retarget to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories where "Barry Soetoro" is mentioned, but seeing as how Barack is not used there it should be deleted. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it has been established that he used the name "Barack Soetoro" during his time in Indonesia; and that he used the name "Barry Soetoro" as well. Either way, it's a reasonable redirect to Obama, and not the conspiracy theory article, since it has nothing to do with the conspiracy. His stepfather was "Soetoro", so it's quite reasonable to have a redirect using his stepfather's name, even if this is a typo version of that. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 22:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A few zealots push junk names for Obama as part of a political attack, but no one uses this name to refer to Obama, and the encyclopedia is not benefited by having all possible attack names created as redirects. Johnuniq (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just that birther conspiracy nonsense. Established by whom, IPaddress? Sourcing is everything at Wikipedia. He never used this name. It was an April Fool's joke. — Maile (talk) 23:16, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I stand corrected. Either way, it still is a reasonable redirect, since it is the name of his stepfather. I'd expect the Dunham variant for his name to also exist, since his mother divorced and he stayed with her and not the elder Obama. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 23:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt - per Johnuniq. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:20, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the absence of cites to reliable sources showing that this name has in fact been used to a notable degree. I observe, approvingly, that Barry Soetoro — with "Barry", not "Barack" — does exist (as a redirect to Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation#Hollister v. Soetoro). — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:52, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as {{R from incorrect name}}. Being wrong is not enough reason for deleting a redirect. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I still believe the best action is to delete this redirect, per the reasoning I gave above. However, if the final decision ends up being to keep it, I believe it should be changed to redirect either to Barry Soetoro, or else to the place where Barry Soetoro currently points to. It doesn't make sense for "Barry Soetoro" and "Barack Soetoro" to redirect to two different targets. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree they should point to the same place. Whether that place is the conspiracy article or the president's bio is a question to be answered. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 01:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. & Johnuniq.--JayJasper (talk) 04:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best to delete both the Barry and Barack Soetoro links, as they reflect fringe conspiracy theories rather and not an encyclopedic presentation of knowledge. The racial overtones of those theories make them not completely harmless. If they are both kept they should both direct to one of the conspiracy theory articles, to educate any readers that these terms are products of such. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. If there was evidence that this term was used a lot by birthers as an insult a la Nobama, fine, keep it, but it's obscure even there, leaving merely a misleading redirect. SnowFire (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obscure redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 01:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment someone please splain what it means to delete and salt. thanks. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It means that the page is protected so it can't be recreated.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we're not keeping anything that fires up the Obama-haters in any way. just that simple. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2013 (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.

FART the Movie[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 to F.A.R.T. the Movie. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 01:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect - F.A.R.T. the Movie is actually a thing, so redirecting it to Fart makes no sense as it not mentioned there. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:51, 11 October 2013 (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.

F.A.R.T. the Movie[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 restore article. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 01:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect - F.A.R.T. the Movie is actually a thing, so redirecting it to Fart makes no sense as it not mentioned there. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-establish the article. What happened was that an editor took an article and made this redirect. If we delete this redirect then we are, in effect, deleting the article without consideration of the article's merit. It may well be that the movie is not notable but that should be decided through a PROD or AFD which no doubt will happen immediately after recreation. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-create article per above. This article should not be deleted unilaterally. -LtNOWIS (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2013 (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.

Peter Julian peintre[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 deleted as WP:CSD R3 by RHaworth. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect created as resukt of name change. Not a likely search phrase. TheLongTone (talk) 17:04, 11 October 2013 (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.

More_than_once[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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect makes no sense: the phrase 'more than once' has nothing specifically to do with the Nobel Prizes. This redirect seems like it may have been inadvertently made by a novice editor who merely intended to make a link. 130.95.95.103 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Duplication. This redirect gets a lot of traffic so it makes sense to target it somewhere relevant. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have notified the creator Benison P Baby. It will be useful to understand the rationale behind the creation of this redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer - I have made the redirect just to skip the other contents and gave the reader a quick access to multiple laureates's space. It is always a useful link. Anyway, I have removed the link.. Benison talk with me
  • Delete The proposed retargeting strikes me as too abstract. We can't accurately predict what someone wants when they put just anything into the search box. I am surprised at the number of hits it's getting, and I'd have to assume it's a combination of people familiar with the redirect who are looking for that section and people who are just curious to follow something that has shown up in the search box. Retargeting would confound the former, and I don't think we really need to worry about the latter. Given the pageviews, I'd be more inclined to keep than retarget. --BDD (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vague redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2013 (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/2013_October_11&oldid=1146312067"