Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 23, 2014.

File:Filming Teaser.jpg[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) 18:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files do not need redirects Mlpearc (open channel) 22:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But (as usual adding insult to injury) the DAB at Teaser lists Teaser trailer as "a short theatrical trailer", which is rather a circular definition, considering that trailer is a DAB which under "teaser trailer" defines as "a truncated version of a theatrical or film trailer", although does offer Trailer (film) as the more likely term for which teaser trailer is a subheading.
Then, listed on both tabs, we find that in fact Teaser trailer is an R to teaser campaign, which the lede opens with "an advertising campaign which typically consists of a series of small, cryptic, challenging advertisements that anticipate a larger, full-blown campaign for a product launch or otherwise important event". We could do with fixing those DABs to point at teaser campaign (not specifically to avoid the R but because the target is misleading). But in any case I am not sure so much a teaser is the campaign rather than an individual ad. Also, movie posters are not typically cryptic except that they usually belie the film itself.
My suspicion is someone was going to create an article specifically about teaser trailers, changed the DABs and stuff, then forgot about it. We should put it back. Si Trew (talk) 11:36, 24 November 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.

Six Flags Asian Guy[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. No consensus to delete, sounds at least marginally useful. -- Beland (talk) 02:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure this redirect is necessary. Or, maybe there is a better alternative than "Asian guy"? --Another Believer (Talk) 20:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - "Six Flags Asian Guy" was an advertising character who appeared in Six Flags commercials after "Mr. Six" was retired, and a few years later was replaced again by Mr. Six. There is a bit about this in the article, so this redirect gets readers to the information they're looking for. There is also some evidence that "Six Flags Asian Guy" was kind of notable for being viewed as racist by some Asian groups, so "Asian Guy" is probably appropriate in the redirect title. However, this doesn't get very many hits, only 11 in all of October. Ivanvector (talk) 22:08, 24 November 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.

Butcher of Gujarat[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. I added a request to the talk page to explain this politically charged nickname in the article, since it does show up in mass media. Mar4d, feel free to jump in. -- Beland (talk) 01:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since speedy deletion was declined, I will take to RfD. It has been argued that there are other "Butcher of ..." redirects. I would point out both WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and the fact that the subjects of the other redirects are deceased, while this subject is living. Secondly, the term is NOT used in the subject's actual article. At the very least, I think that, in accordance with WP:BLP, reliable sources should be supplied for the use of this term. There are none in the article at the present time. To cover ourselves on WP:BLP, somebody should provide reliable sources for the terms and those reliable sources should also be placed on the redirect page itself. If it cannot be reliably sourced, the redirect should fall. Safiel (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment:. I'm undecided here. I declined the speedy because WP:RNEUTRAL says that non-neutral redirects may be acceptable if the term is widely used, and Google shows that this one is; on the other hand, it is not used in the target article and at a quick look I do not see that it has been there, at least recently. It is disturbing that the Google search for the term returns the Wikipedia article at the top. Could the redirect be causing that? If so, that is a strong argument for deleting it. JohnCD (talk) 19:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
JohnCD, yes, the redirect is almost certainly the cause of the article being the top Google hit. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I say delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a high ranking site, and often ranks above the original sources it is using for its own articles. SEO is not a valid rationale unless it was something that was never mentioned in the sources and was pure OR. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:26, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There have been previous RfD discussions about "Butcher of..." redirects, e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 2#Butcher of the Balkans and a 2005 discussion archived at Talk:Butcher of Baghdad. I'm pretty sure I've commented on at least one other one as well, but I can't currently find it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I removed the original speedy tag because of clear evidence from Google News and other searches that this non-neutral epithet is at least in use. We do allow such redirects to exist if theya re well-attested and are likely to be searched for.I don't think the case for keeping the redirect is anywhere near as strong as for Butcher of the Balkans or even Butcher of Baghdad, but there is a case for it, because there is coverage of it. On the other hand, the news coverage I saw was mostly about certain of Modi's opponents hanging this epithet on him, rather than discussion of Modi directly. For me the biggest issue is that if the redirect stays, then there ought to be some discussion of the term "Butcher of Gujarat" in modi's article; if the editors of that article don't think that it's worth discussing, then the case for keeping is much weaker. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL and the fact that there is a vast body of sources indicating the use of this term. I don't see how it constitutes a slander or BLP violation since we didn't invent this term, rather the coverage it has in secondary sources establishes that. There is also an obvious precedent with these 'Butcher of..' redirects, and this is not the first one. However, this is probably one of the most notable and widely used ones, and has coverage in multiple reliable sources. I don't know why the term is not mentioned on the article itself given its common use in reference to the Gujarat riots. Mar4d (talk) 08:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no such reference in the article, or a single journal or academic source supporting this? Can we add it to the article first and then create this redirect? --AmritasyaPutraT 10:46, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have a time machine? Si Trew (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Butcher of Gujarat" was phrase used by Trinamool Congress MP Derek OBrien when Modi spoke against West Bengal CM Mamata Banerjee during an election speech[1]. It found its way into google search because many newspapers and recent books have mentioned about Brien's tweets. That doesn't earn Modi that nickname. What if some leader calls Modi as "God of All Worlds"? Will you keep an redirect for it? - Vatsan34 (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep WP:RNEUTRAL#3. A few things, if it is not in the article being redirected to, that is what needs to be corrected so to say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as you pointed out. Secondly, it may not always be necessary for the article to use a POV title, however redirects specifically use POV titles to take the users to a neutral title where the original article exists. The purpose of the redirect is to take users of all POVs to this neutral article. BLP policy is satisfied by coverage in multiple RS found in a simple search, even WP:RS titled in that name so to say [2]. I will also point out by the closer here that if all the policies are being satisfied, consensus does not override policy and NPOV does not apply to redirects in the same way. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it is so obvious why is it not mentioned in the article anywhere? Can I have one academic/journal source? Or anything other than sensational opinion pieces from political speeches? --AmritasyaPutraT 05:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Told you already, if it's not in the article WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... not my fault you did not put it there.. there's no policy of not having a redirect if it doesn't exist in the article. So no, we can't add it to the article 'first' and then create the redirect. As for political news coverage... that does count as reliable enough to show that this is a known title and hence people may search for him using this. It maybe non neutral to put it in the article, If that POV redirect takes them to a neutral name (yes they actually are searching for it), it is ok by wikipedia. --lTopGunl (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RNEUTRAL. Faizan 13:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per neutrality of redirects.  SAMI  talk 19:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Doesn't WP:BLP apply? He is a living person, and there is zero academic source that uses that label. It was used only by political opponents in election speeches. --AmritasyaPutraT 03:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a BLP violation because it is verifiable in reliable sources (atleast in reliable news sources); there's significant coverage of this term being used against him. That just makes it POV. We use POV titles as redirects instead of using them as article name so that readers from any POV are lead to the neutral article. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found ~7k hits for the quoted term "Magician Modi" and 9 national newspaper articles at a cursory glance, shall we add that too? And "Yamaraj" and "Hindu nationalist"? Why has no one presented even one academic source? Reproduction of political speeches in sensational news articles is what we have here. --AmritasyaPutraT 06:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absent evidence that this is a well-known and widely used nickname. Did he kill anyone? This is an ephemeral political attack, and enshrining it as an indefinite search term is short-sighted and ill advised. I do see one source from 2013, but most of those Google hits are news stories from earlier this year. --BDD (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potential compromise: Include a sourced statement about this nickname at Narendra Modi#Personality and image and refine the redirect to target that section. This would be my second choice. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is WP:DUE to get a mention in the main article itself and I am surprised how it doesn't as of yet. But I'll work on that once there's an outcome here. Mar4d (talk) 10:46, 8 December 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.

Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (gist)[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) 18:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GIST is a plausible redirect, but this combination of full name and abbreviation is not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete – implausible and unnecessary. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:RFD#R8 "implausible... recently created" suggests CSD since it's being discussed (and the two sentences i elided are disjoint) that would tend to rule it out or CSD. Si Trew (talk) 11:01, 24 November 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:ANIISLOUSY[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. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially unused (only four links) NE Ent 04:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete well it is lousy :P but delete as a joke redirect. --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless fine, you got me. Maybe I need to lighten up a bit. --Lenticel (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless. Not enough jokes on WP if you ask me. Sure, shouldn't be in user-facing content, but I don't see the harm of a well-intentioned joke outside of that. Si Trew (talk) 11:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless. The redirect, not ANI. Ivanvector (talk) 22:10, 24 November 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.

ABDUL RAHIM AYOUBI[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. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization. No use whatsoever. Zhantongz (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a perfectly standard and perfectly harmless {{R from other capitalisation}}. We shouldn't routinely create all-caps redirects, but if they are created then there is neither reason nor benefit to deleting them. Thryduulf (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf --Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This obvious error has been brought to our attention, and it should be deleted. We shouldn't routinely create all-caps redirects, but if they are created then there is neither reason nor benefit to keeping them. Senator2029 “Talk” 10:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The benefits to keeping are to maintain links from external sites, bookmarks, and case-sensitive search methods. Deleting someone's contributions unnecessarily is also a very good way to drive editors (and potential editors) away from Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for, which is the only use of redirects, thus making it maximally useful. WilyD 10:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thyrduulf and WilyD. Arabic and the English (sic) alphabet have entirely different systems of letterforming, so this makes it slightly more useful than many. Si Trew (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow Keep plausible, no use of deleting either and WP:Editors Matter. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:02, 26 November 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_November_23&oldid=1138579827"