Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 9, 2014.

Hidden Pirate Island[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) 09:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Internet slang? TheChampionMan1234 23:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete waay too vague to be useful. Could easily be referring to Pitcairn Island, which was mislocated on Royal Navy maps, thus "hidden", and refuge for the mutineers from the Bounty, so "hidden pirate island". Or any island hosting a hidden pirate base for pirates of any age or era, such as several such locations in the Caribbean. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per anon. I was thinking of retargetting this to Pirate Islands or Pirates Island but I think it won't be justified.--Lenticel (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I saw this term, and I seriously thought it was going to be about some sort of amusement park. Either way, the current target doesn't make sense. Steel1943 (talk) 00:31, 11 June 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.

ZSZ[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 delete, G2 by User:Shirt58. No opinion on recreating this redirect for the articles mentioned by Peter James. Lenticel (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


This redirect should be deleted. William Pina (talk · contribs) created the ZSZ page previously, and it was CSD'd under criteria G1. I don't know what the content was, but he subsequently created it again, as a redirect to the WP Main Page! I believe this redirect should be deleted. I would mark it for CSD but I don't think it falls under the rules for CSD. Jeh (talk) 20:33, 9 June 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.

LGBT rights in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands[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) 20:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights are not the same in the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and the rest of the UK (as can be seen here: LGBT rights by country or territory), so simply redirecting is misleading. In addition LGBT rights in the United Kingdom makes no reference to the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. I therefore propose deleting this redirect as the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands have no native population. I think it is unlikely an editor has knowledge of the specific LGBT laws of the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands who can themselves create an accurate page on the issue. Greggydude (talk) 18:16, 9 June 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.

LGBT rights in the Pitcairn Islands[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) 20:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT rights are not the same in the Pitcairns and the rest of the UK (as can be seen here: LGBT rights by country or territory), so simply redirecting is misleading. In addition LGBT rights in the United Kingdom makes no reference to the Pitcairns. I therefore propose deleting this redirect until a time where an editor with knowledge of the specific LGBT laws of the Pitcairn islands themselves can create an accurate page on the issue. Greggydude (talk) 18:11, 9 June 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:Cleanup-lead[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 27#Template:Cleanup-lead

Εγγαστριμυθία[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) 14:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not especially Greek. Gorobay (talk) 13:17, 9 June 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.

Vertically structured[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) 14:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how this redirect came about, but it makes no sense to me and it has no inlinks. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The phrase does come up as a type of operating system, but excluding that or "kernel" from a Google search makes only 1K of 29K results go away. It's a phrase used in a wide array of fields; perhaps eventually this would invite disambiguation but for now a red link is in order. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the phrase is so generic that there can be no primary target, and is very unlikely to be used as search term. Actually, it is too generic for DAB either. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 22:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this would most commonly be associated with a corporate structure of a manufacturer, not a kernel. Or it could be about industrial design compared to horizontally structured products. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was searching for possible homes for this redirect but to no avail. Potential targets range from planetary atmospheres to corporate structures but the redirect was too vague to point to any of them.--Lenticel (talk) 04:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. as {{R to section}} to Corporate structure#Classifications. Si Trew editing as IP 85.238.64.128 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 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.

Bindrune Recordings[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) 16:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bindrune Recordings is a record label which signs numerous artists, including Celestiial. As such, a redirect is inappropriate and misleading. The page was created because of a user's distaste for redlinks based on a rejected proposal. Our guidelines on redlinks, of course, say nothing about how redlinks should be avoided- quite the opposite, in fact. J Milburn (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Distaste" isn't quite the word. If those are placed for future creation, then they can be created into bluelinks. Frankly, it seems as though you're being ungrateful for recommendations/attempted favors and I feel offended by you dismissing my contributions like that. Redirect to a different page if needed. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 11:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no appropriate page for a redirect- that's why I've nominated it for deletion. A redlink is appropriate, and for that, the page needs to be deleted. That's why I'm frustrated, here- you seem to be committed to the idea that a redlink is a bad thing, and that anything is better than a redlink, but that simply is not the case. Please, take a look at our guideline on redlinks. J Milburn (talk) 16:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you felt frustrated, but that is NOT under any circumstance an excuse to be rude, arrogant, or dismissive towards others and their input/contributions. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not being rude or arrogant, and I am being dismissive with perfectly good reason, as I have repeatedly explained. Please don't patronise me. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're a major and recent contributor to that article. I think you should rule yourself out of the discussion, it is a conflict of interest. Don't patronise other good faith editors either. Si Trew editing as IP 85.238.64.128 (talk) 09:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking to me? I'm afraid I have no idea what you are saying. If you want to make a comment about my conduct/a COI, please do so on my talk page. Though if you're suggesting that I should not participate in a GA review of an article I've written, then, with respect, I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: current target does not explain the topic of redirect, and I found no proper target. WP:RED may also apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What?. The target says in the lede that Celestiial is a one-man band that three men play in. Is it WP:JOKE or WP:PROMO or what? A few editors have cast their eye over it but the target is probably not WP:N in the first place. Si Trew editing as IP 85.238.64.128 (talk) 09:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has had few eyes in the last few years, and it's certainly not in a perfect state, but it's very obviously neither a joke nor a promo, and the band is obviously notable. The idea that I have to defend the existence of the target article while trying to get a useless redirect deleted makes a mockery of this process. (Also, "Si Trew" is not a registered account, so I'm afraid I have no idea who you are.) J Milburn (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's SimonTrew. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 27 June 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.

Turn the page (album)[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 Turn the Page (album). JohnCD (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend moving this to Turn the Page (Aaliyah album). Launchballer 08:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get when I rush XFDs. What I mean is "Turn the page (album)" is ambiguous as it can refer to many albums called "Turn the Page". On closer investigation, I can't even find any evidence to suggest she did an album with that name.--Launchballer 12:22, 9 June 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.

Democracy and Dictatorship[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. The target page indicates this term is used for the index. And while it's plausible to imagine an essay or book called Democracy and Dictatorship, it's unlikely to be an article. See WP:AND for one example of why. --BDD (talk) 16:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Democracy and Dictatorship" is a much broader term than a so-called "index". Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 05:54, 9 June 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.

South Africa black and whites[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) 14:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks harmful to me. TheChampionMan1234 05:03, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, looks like a remnant of pagemove vandalism from 2008. VQuakr (talk) 05:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely search term. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:10, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete looks more like a repugnancy of pagemove vandalism from 2008.--Launchballer 12:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per above.--Lenticel (talk) 04:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete. Inclined to suggest Apartheid but it does seem an unlikely search term with the singular and plural in the same term. Si Trew editing as IP 85.238.64.128 (talk) 09:23, 11 June 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.

Antihistorical[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 all to Historical revisionism (negationism). JohnCD (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading topic. TheChampionMan1234 04:30, 9 June 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.

Involuntary celibacy[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 redirect and 90 stored revisions in Celibacy. Let's put this to rest. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 18:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at WP:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) was to Merge this article to Celibacy. However, the consensus at Talk:Celibacy was to not keep any content after the merge on that page. Tarc and Mythic Writerlord have both expressed the opinion that a retarget to the author of the concept, Denise Donnelly, makes more sense. Tarc requested that I post the RfD for him. IMHO, the redirect to celibacy makes more sense since our readers are better served by reading about the mainstream usage of the word than by reading one sentence about the topic in a biography. VQuakr (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - The 'article'(Denise Donnelly) that it's currently being redirected to was supposed to have been deleted. This all seems very disturbing. Especially considering this article at Salon and this plea from one of the supporters of these articles. Perhaps it should be redirected to someone more appropriate, like Antisocial personality disorder or Psychopathy. Or someone should delve more deeply into this type of behavior and find psychological texts to find out where it should be directed to. I do not believe Wikipedia wants to be used a promotional tool for the people described in the Salon article. Disturbing. Dave Dial (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This case is very, very confusing to the unfamiliar eye and involves deletes, restores, moves, sockpuppetry, unusual AfD proceedings, etc. Here is a summary of events: An IP created Involuntary celibacy in 2004. It was nominated for deletion in January 2014, which Coffee closed as merge. Then the block-evading sockpuppet Candleabracadabra moved Involuntary celibacy to Denise Donnelly and created an article on top of that. Coffee then closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly as delete per WP:CSD#G5, but because of the move, thousands of edits in the history of Involuntary celibacy were ensnarled in the deletion. I cleaned up the mess made by the sock and moved the article history back to where it belonged, preserving the redirect to Celibacy per the original AfD. RHaworth then deleted the page, which I'm not sure why as 1) there is no XfD which supported deletion of Involuntary celibacy; and 2) even if the editors at Celibacy rejected the complete content of the page afterwards, it still has been merged once before and contains publicly visible revisions using content from Involuntary celibacy. To comply with licensing, either the revision history of Involuntary celibacy must be visible, or all of those intermediate revisions at Celibacy must be suppressed. I don't really care about this particular redirect, but I just wanted to say that if this RfD is closed as delete, a simple delete won't do. In such a case the closing admin should either take those revisions and move them to some random place or suppress the intermediate revision history of Celibacy. In the meantime, I have restored the history so that it is clearer to participants here what is going on. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Two clarifications: there are alternate attribution workarounds listed at WP:Merge and delete, and WP:Revision deletion, not the more opaque WP:Oversight (shortcut WP:Suppression), is sufficient. These are the affected revisions in Celibacy. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I am of the opinion that the events of the last few months have shown that the material is deemed unfit for Wikipedia by the majority of editors involved in these various articles the content found refuge in. The Celibacy article's editors are of the overwhelming opinion that the term is both a fringe theory as well as largely un-encyclopedic, and that it does not belong as a section of that article. The Denise Donnelly article was created by a known vandal for the sole purpose of creating a page in which to store the content; Donnelly herself and her supposed notability wasn't what inspired its creation, it was merely a ploy to include the material. A stand-alone article was also deemed undesirable. This makes me wonder: why should the term "involuntary celibacy" be linked to the article celibacy still, even after consensus among the editors of celibacy has shown they consider the two terms unrelated? There is no mention of the term in the entire celibacy page, they have nothing to do with one another. Donnelly's article is the only one on the entire Wikipedia that mentions the term "involuntary celibacy", as being part of one of her researches. Therefore if there is going to be a redirect rather then a full delete, I believe the redirect should be to Denise Donnelly rather then celibacy. Although I personally would not be opposed to a full delete of the entire article seeing as though wherever it gets posted for discussion, consensus usually agrees the term is a fringe theory unfit for stand-alone articles or even to be included as a section some where else. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 07:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't see what the big deal is in regards to history preservation. If the current Denise Donnelly stub was written from scratch, as attested to by the creator, and if the current celibacy article contains no merged material from the old incel article (i.e. the merged content was deleted entirely), then what licensing provisions would be violated by this redirect's outright deletion? Tarc (talk) 13:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Denise Donnelly looks fine to me. The merged content in Celibacy was removed or reverted, not deleted – either WP:Revision deletion or the deprecated WP:Selective deletion. I linked to the relevant history range under King of Hearts's comment. Flatscan (talk) 04:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to celibacy and salt. Why is this matter provoking such endless discussion? A redirect to Denise Donnelly is inappropriate since that article does no more than mention the term. A redirect to celibacy is almost as inappropriate for the same reason. But if someone in the future felt that a little more should be said about Donnelly's study then the celibacy article would be the appropriate place to do it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:42, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they said they didn't want it per WP:FRINGE? Delete and salt.--Launchballer 08:43, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is simply no place in this project to point this to. The previous AfD found consensus to merge to celibacy as an alternative to deletion, but editors at talk:celibacy decided to ax the merged material as it was deemed fringe pseudo-science. There's no point in redirecting the reader to an article where they cannot find any info on the term, and an AfD result cannot force merged content to remain in a target article. The term has a single name-drop at Denise Donnelly, but at the moment, the consensus form that AfD determined that the incel stuff should be extremely minimal if her bio is to remain. If it has no home, then the only option is deletion. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Tarc. A fringe theory redirected to a page of which the editors overwhelmingly agree it has nothing to do with, it seems more then a little fishy to me. Whether the articles past revisions get deleted or not is of little concern at this point as all the past revisions proof is the utter lack of encyclopedic value there is to the topic. The debate has dragged on long enough and is still endlessly being repeated over and over again, despite the conclusion always being more or less the same: either it is merge (and consistently lacking in a good location for such a merge) or delete. And this delete has already been carried out, after which inexplicably the material was restored to be redirect to a page it has nothing to do with. The longevity of the issue is baffling and I'd welcome a strong delete making and keeping it a protected red link, if possible. At least for the next year or so. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 15:53, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to sexless marriage: the only related topic I could find (although it is narrower in scope). I would hapily !vote "delete" if only page title was not from 2004. I strongly oppose Celibacy target, because celibacy is voluntary by definition, and even unfortunate and misleading wording of this term does not make target article helpful here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Tarc. I think this is more like sexual frustration more than anything.--Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those of you !voting "delete" (Launchballer, Tarc, Mythic Writerlord, Lenticel): Could you state whether you would prefer for the revision history of the former article to be preserved somewhere, or for the revisions at Celibacy which contain content from Involuntary celibacy to be revdel'd? Otherwise, if Involuntary celibacy is deleted, those Celibacy revisions would be in violation of the attribution requirement. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment didn't Tarc said that they axed the information in the first place?--Lenticel (talk) 03:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ends have no merged content, so the revisions to delete are 88 or fewer. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I support revision deleting 90 revisions.--Launchballer 07:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support the deletion of the whole page with it's entire history and all previous revisions, deleting it and making it a protected red link. I believe I said so above, hope this clarification helps. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the end result is that involuntary celibacy turns red, I'm largely unconcerned with how we arrive there. I was not aware that material simply existing in an old revision of an article was non-policy compliant. Tarc (talk) 12:46, 10 June 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_June_9&oldid=1085561701"