Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 29, 2014.

PASTE[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. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing where in this article this topic is referred to in all caps. Even per the image of the cover of its magazine (File:PasteMag.jpg), at least the "a" and "t" are lowercase. I boldly edited the redirect to retarget to Paste (a disambiguation page) for that reason, but since that edit was undone, the edit seems to be controversial. I was referred to WP:DIFFCAPS for the reason of the revert; however, I'm not seeing how that applies since the magazine's title is not stylized in all caps, but rather maybe PaStE or PastE. Steel1943 (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep: Not really sure, but the magazine seems a more probable target than anything else. All the same, the target should get a hatnote for this. --NYKevin 02:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambiguation page. Per nom -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 03:58, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the dab page. --Lenticel (talk) 09:05, 30 April 2014 (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.

Sherifian post[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. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any idea the purpose of this redirect? I've been looking around for a while, and the only reference I can find in regards to this term is at Compendium of postage stamp issuers (Sc – Sl)#Sherifian Post. I am trying to fathom why this redirect targets Google; I have no idea. I say Delete per WP:REDLINK; the section where this subject is mentioned by name is not really a sufficient target due to the lack of description. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If copyright is ambiguous I recommend G12ing until we can confirm its status one way or another.--Launchballer 18:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can't copyright something like that. The relationship between these two (if any exists whatsoever) is an idea rather than an expression. We haven't copied any actual words or content. --NYKevin 18:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Bizarre and unnecessary. --NYKevin 18:50, 30 April 2014 (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.

Template:NewYorkCity-struct-stub[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 21#Template:NewYorkCity-struct-stub

World market[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 both as recently retargeted to Market (economics). Opinion is divided as to whether a redirect or a DAB is most appropriate. However, there is no support to retain the original targets. Conversion to a DAB does not require agreement here so, consequently, I am supporting the retargeting and it is open to any editor to overwrite the redirect with a DAB page if considered appropriate. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Market (economics) is about the idea of a market; someone searching for a "world market" is probably looking for information about the World economy, so I propose retargeting there. Strictly speaking, there isn't a "world market" (the phrase "world markets" is perhaps more common), but I think the world economy is closer to that idea. --BDD (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...Which would mean, in turn, that World Market should be retargeted to World market, in case that wasn't clear. Steel1943 (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BDD: Do you have any thoughts on my disambiguation page suggestion? Steel1943 (talk) 20:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. --BDD (talk) 20:22, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DAB per Steel1943. The decisions on what items are appropriate on that DAB beyond the ones roughly meaning the international trade between capitalist societies, can be discussed there: in principle I think a DAB would be the best thing. Si Trew (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retrget to Market (economics) as improving over current target. Torquemama007 (talk) 17:33, 30 April 2014 (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.

Manmohan Tiwari[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. Number 57 12:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable person. Contestant of a reality TV show. Redtigerxyz Talk 19:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. What next, people on phone-in shows? Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nomination is probably an accurate description of Manmohan Tiwari, but it's not an argument for deleting a redirect. Topics of redirects aren't required to be notable; in fact redirecting to a broader topic is a common outcome of deletion discussions relating to non-notable topics, and serves to discourage editors from creating articles on such topics. In this case the redirect is a plausible search term and mentioned in the target article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but Wikipedia is not Who's Who or an Equity list either. The single mention of his name is the link itself in a table including profession and hometown: no substantial information on the subject. No other contestant has a blue link (they all have red links) and this one blue link is of course just a circular link via the redirect. It's not even an {{R to section}}. It should go per WP:REDLINK. Si Trew (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? WP:REDLINK is clear that red links should only be included for articles that are likely to be created. As a personal name and an article that's not likely to be created (per your !vote I assume you agree this person isn't notable), redlinking to this is specifically discouraged per WP:REDNOT. I've removed all the links to personal names in the table accordingly. You're right of course that there's only a brief mention of this contestant, but if the article were expanded it could easily include a more comprehensive description (see, for example, Big Brother 10 (UK)#Housemates). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 00:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Arms & Hearts. The person is mentioned at the target article, and it's common practice to redirect reality show contestants to articles on their show (or season, where applicable). See, for example, redirects to the first season of American Idol. I can't think of a good reason to treat Indian shows differently. A&H is also correct in his interpretation of REDLINK: this person should probably not have a standalone article, so if the redirect hinders anyone from making one, that's a feature, not a bug. --BDD (talk) 19:07, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Arms & Hearts' arguments, but not his conclusion from them (which was Keep). We shouldn't have articles of every participant who has ever appeared on a game show or "reality" show. Some, such as Fred Housego, are notable (he was a London taxi driver who won the UK upmarket quiz show Mastermind (TV series), which astounded people even though London taxi drivers have to learn The Knowledge of about 25,000 London streets and develop a larger hippocampus than average). Some, such as the first people to win various national versions of Who Wants to be a Millionaire?, are notable (presumably) and have their own brief articles. But considering how many game/quiz shows there are and how many contestants they need to fill them, to assume all are notable is bizarre. While redirects do not have to meet WP:N, the search engine would presumably find it anyway since patently there is no other notable person of this name to obscure its view. Either delete to encourage creation of the article, delete to let the search engine do the work, or at the very least make it an {{R to section}} rather than make the reader then search the page for the name. Si Trew (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the person is not discussed in the target article beyond showing up in a table. We do not have information about this person, so the redirect is misleading. --NYKevin 03:48, 3 May 2014 (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.

Shopdropping[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. Involved close given the backlog and clear consensus after over three weeks of listing. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This specific form of culture jamming isn't mentioned on the target page in any form. Delete to encourage creation, or just to avoid misleading readers. --BDD (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per BDD and perhaps WP:WORLDWIDE as well. I have never heard of any of these terms so perhaps they are US-specific? Or perhaps I am just getting old. It's my birthday today, and I just found out from my mum (whose birthday is the day before) that I will be 42. I thought I was 42 last year so for a whole year I have been telling people I was a year older than I was, you would think I could count. You shouldn't really trust me on anything if I can't even remember how old I am. Si Trew (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, I say again (I am allowed two !votes because it is my birthday). None of these is mentioned at the target. There's a reference here to "reverse shoplifting (shopdropping)". There are others as well but this is the closest to being WP:RS and at least gives a definition. Personally what I like to do is either take something out of someone's shopping cart/trolley so they get home and find they haven't got any cat food or whatever (it's not stealing because they have not paid for it until they get out of the store/shop), take something I like out to save me walking the whole store to find it and put it in me own trolley, or put some inappropriate thing in that they won't notice: condoms into an old lady's or whatever. But that is just because I hate supermarkets, not the individuals nor the companies but the stores, I just hate shopping in big stores generally so I have my bit of fun while I am in them. Si Trew (talk) 01:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternatively, we could revert Droplifting to its pre-redirect state, which while extremely short, is probably better than a redlink. The other titles could be retargeted there. - Eureka Lott — Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 15 April 2014‎
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I chose bad wording there. I was not trying to suggest that not being known worldwide is a reason for deletion, only that perhaps it should be marked as {{worldwide}} or at least mention in the text to say the expression is chiefly US (if it is, just because I haven't heard of it doesn't mean others won't have). Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2014 (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.

Varnasrama[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 May 6#Varnasrama

Wikipedia:MFD/SV/ONS[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. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect seems to have been created by the editor/user who had this page as a subpage, most likely to refer to this page elsewhere... maybe? It may have been useful to the editor who created the page, but it doesn't seem like it would be useful to anyone else, especially considering that the redirect is for a specific nomination, and not any instruction page of WP:MFD, or any other similar type of page. Steel1943 (talk) 02:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There is precedent for such things (e.g. WP:RFAR/DDL, WP:EEML), but the linked MfD just isn't important enough. It's not an issue that affects the site as a whole. It's just a particular example of BLP-violating material being deleted per the rules. The discussion may be long and interesting, but it didn't really set any important precedent so far as I can tell. BLP has always been applicable to all parts of the site, not just mainspace, and this did not overturn or strengthen that principle. It also has very few links and is useless for searching, being in projectspace, so it serves no purpose. Oh, and would someone like to have a look at the templates in that MfD? They appear broken. --NYKevin 03:29, 29 April 2014 (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/2014_April_29&oldid=1089813508"