Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 19, 2014.

Atomic Energy Commission investigation of John F. Kennedy assassination evidence[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 article restored. VQuakr essentially tried a WP:D-R here, but D-R is BOLD, and there's consensus to revert it. No prejudice against AfD, a merge proposal, or similar actions. --BDD (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion of the redirect, restoration of the article for further improvement and creation of a summary in the target article. The redirected article was meant to be a WP:SPINOFF of the target article. Reason: The blanking and redirection by user VQuakr for alleged WP:POVFORK is unfounded, because the redirected article is not a fork and it is not POV. WP:R#DELETE applies here: "(10) If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." The target article contains no information from the redirected article. This information is also not contained anywhere else on Wikipedia. The redirected article is not POV, because it contains (to my best knowledge) all available important information on its topic and all text is entirely build of quotes from independent third-party reliable sources which are experts in the related areas (history, physic in forensics, criminal justice). Icarus4 (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC) Edit: I adapted my proposal, please see below. Icarus4 (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Icarus4. Raquel Baranow (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article was clearly a POV fork, sourced almost entirely to a single fringe source. The user created article after failing to convince editors at Talk:Assassination of John F. Kennedy#New chapter "Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)" to include it on the main assassination page. I also doubt that this forum is an acceptable one to attempt to override consensus on that article talk page, re and creation of a summary in the target article. VQuakr (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have not given reasons for your claim of a "POV fork". I sourced the article mainly via McKnight because I do not posses the other books on the article's topic. I invite other editors to contribute with additional sources. The mainly used source, Gerald D. McKnight's "Breach of Trust is the leading study of the Warren Commission" [1]. The redirection of one article is unrelated to whether consensus exists or is being changed in another article. After refuting all but one counter argument in the talk page I integrated the single remaining counter argument in my next editing iteration and followed WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD. Icarus4 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This subject does not warrant a separate page. As noted on the discussion page of the assassination page, where Icarus inserted his disputed text three times without gaining consensus, this subject can be reduced to a paragraph addition to the assassination rifle page, and be expanded into several paragraphs on the assassination conspiracy page. And, as written, the article is POV, something repeatedly pointed out to Icarus with no serious attempt from him to address those concerns. The fact he claims he "refuted" all these objections is an indication to me that he is not interesting in conforming the article to wikipedia standards, despite the glaring problems with his proposed text. Canada Jack (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's go step by step and first concentrate on the allegation of the article being a WP:POVFORK, which was used for the redirection. Second would be where to link to this article - as suggested by VQuakr this could also be discussed elsewhere (on article's talk pages). I propose placing one or several of the templates "New user article", "cleanup", "Unbalanced", "POV-statement", "Tone" into the appropriate locations of the article (analog for its talk page) to help the readers get a better understanding of the article and speed up the article improvement. The notability of the article is presumed and therefore warrants a separate article. I did not "insert the disputed text three times without gaining consensus", instead I followed WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:BRD by carefully considering and discussing all arguments ([1] [2]) and improving my contributions by integrating all arguments in an aim for improvement of Wikipedia. Please consider reading WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT and WP:OWN. Icarus4 (talk) 22:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was pointed out repeatedly to Icarus that phrases such as "The only tenable conclusion that could be drawn from the NAA tests was that Lee Harvey Oswald had not fired a rifle on the day of the assassination" (which is found in the lede, without quotes) was a POV assertion which needed at a very minimum to be clearly identified as the opinion of the author he is basing the majority of the article upon. That phrase is taken from the latest, supposedly "carefully" considered version. Here is another statement which I pointed out was POV which he did not amend: "The FBI and the Warren Commission conspired to suppress the NAA test results, which do not appear in the report or its appendices." I repeatedly have underlined the difference between an opinion and a fact and that for the purposed of wikipedia, those claims I flagged had to be identified as opinions, and not the "facts" they are presented as being. He refused to accept they were POV assertions and continues to claim all arguments brought forward have been "refuted" by him, even though other editors have made similar points.
Instead of amending the text, he went into a very lengthy list of citations which backed up the contention, denied it was "POV," and re-inserted the text twice after I told him of the issue, and now has attempted this POV fork. And, moments after I made my initial statement above he added a note to my page informing me that I should remain civil on these pages, a note I took as being an implied threat. Canada Jack (talk) 04:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your proposal for amendment of these disputed quotes, this is a good way to improve the article. Let me attempt to summarize the state of the issue: The redirected article is not a WP:POVFORK because it is not a fork. But some of its content is disputed for its representation (attribution of quotes to their author). Therefore I change my original proposal: Now I propose the deletion of the redirection according to WP:R#DELETE (10) (see above), the amendment of the article content by attribution of disputed quotes to their author, and inclusion of a summary in the target article which also respects these issues (the amendments) and the undue weight issue (at the target article's talk page, you proposed the article's summary should be more concise to avoid undue weight relative to the other summaries [1] ). Of course other editors are invited to further improve the article and provide additional sources. Icarus4 (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but the subject does not warrant a separate page nor mention on the main assassination page. Why give equal weight to this very narrow issue when we don't even spell out the reasons the Warren Commission concluded Oswald was the assassin? As I have also previously stated, this information more properly lives on the assassination rifle page, where it can be framed in the manner I have suggested, along the lines of: "The NAA/AEC did tests on the paraffin samples which found no evidence of rifle residue from Oswald's, but did find evidence of residue in control samples. Some have interpreted this to mean that Oswald could not have fired a rifle that day." The claims of a cover-up etc can be expanded on the conspiracy page. Canada Jack (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good news first: We agree on how to handle the issues which were raised when the redirection was done. The RfD should therefore be closed with "delete redirection". All other issues could be discussed on other places (on articles' talk pages). But because I proposed the article to be a WP:SPINOFF of the target article, I will discuss it here as concise as possible: According to the guideline for notability, the article is notable which means it warrants a separate article: The article's notability is presumed generally and the article does not violate what Wikipedia is not. Regarding due weight of the summary inclusion: First, I propose a summary whose content respects all issues discussed here and whose length is appropriate relative to the other summaries on the target article. Second, to not include a summary would give the article no weight at all in the target article, which would be undue weight. I suggest I integrate all the above arguments into my next editing iteration, continuing to improve my Wikipedia contributions, following WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Then we all can go on improving the articles from there. Icarus4 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article - even the proposed summary which might appear on the main assassination page - gives far too much weight to a very minor side issue of the assassination. I am not aware this is one of the chief avenues of discussion and controversy like, say, the autopsy issues, the grassy knoll issue and the single bullet theory, NONE of which is discussed in depth on the main page.

The controversy can be summarized by the following text which could appear on the rifle page: "The NAA/AEC did tests on the paraffin samples which found no evidence of rifle residue from Oswald's, but did find evidence of residue in control samples. Some have interpreted this to mean that Oswald could not have fired a rifle that day." This is all that is needed. You have failed to make the case of notability. Canada Jack (talk) 22:28, 10 February 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) 17:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and take to WP:AFD if considered appropriate. Since the Bold redirection has been challenged, AFD is the place to decide on the future of the article. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:45, 22 February 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.

Rîbnița sub-district, Transnistria[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) 19:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hoax Androoox (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • note Four nominations with identical rationales combined into one. Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Talk:Camenca_sub-district#Move.3F there was a move discussion with light attendance, where JaGa favoured keeping "sub-district" in the title of several articles. Another user with an opposing view was blocked as a sock-puppet. Years later, Aleksandr Krymsky moved the articles, perhaps unilaterally, with the comment "it is not sub!" The target page still uses the term "sub-district". I'm not sure what the proper term is, but these articles had "sub-district" in their titles for a long time, so the redirects could be helpful to people who remember the former titles, or in case other sites have linked to the old titles. —rybec 14:59, 9 February 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) 17:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all 4. We don't have in Moldova administrative subdivisions called "sub-districts". Rîbnița is district. XXN (talk) 03:24, 1 March 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.

Canny (attribute)[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a Geordie dictionary. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - discussed at target; I could plausibly believe there's an argument to be made for disambiguation, but there's no argument to be made for deletion. WilyD 15:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Uncanny, or disambiguate retarget to canny and add appropriate entries. -- 70.24.244.161 (talk) 06:06, 11 February 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) 17:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like that's where it's been pointing this whole time; RfD just doesn't show sections in targets, unfortunately. --BDD (talk) 00:46, 26 February 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.

Sailor teeny-weeny-compact-vertically-challenged Moon[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) 00:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ridiculous joke redirect (not mentioned in article, and no ghits indi of WP), previous attempt to delete by AfD Widefox; talk 13:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As nominator points out, this redirect is ridiculous on its face. Furthermore, the phrase does not appear anywhere in the target article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as joke redirect and as an obscure synonym as well.--Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Undo the joke link. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:28, 24 February 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.

Wikipedia:DEEPLINK[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not used, should link rather to policy about links from Deep net. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 10:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Deep linking is not synonymous with the deep web so the suggested target is not appropriate. Either keep and expand the present target or retarget it to some other page that deals with deep linking. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Thryduulf; and note that no argument as to why the current target is not a good one is advanced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – "Not used" is not a valid argument to delete REDIRECTs as they may well be used as shortcuts in edit summaries. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:16, 20 February 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.

Tariq Trotter[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 wrong forum, see Wikipedia:Requested moves. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be the other way around; Trotter hasn't used the moniker "Black Thought" in years (on Jimmy Fallon, he is always referred to as Tariq). Erpert blah, blah, blah... 08:41, 19 February 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.

ESMTPA[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) 17:20, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if I created this redirect in error; specifically, Wikipedia's search results for ESMTPA (which include only 3 articles) may be more useful than a redirect. Are ESMTPA and SMTP Authentication even the same thing? Bwrs (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
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_February_19&oldid=1138579566"