Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 28, 2015.

International Islamic University, Islamabad.[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 International Islamic University, Islamabad. --BDD (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Implausible typo. Nick Number (talk) 21:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to the article at International Islamic University, Islamabad. The mistake is only in the full stop/period at the end and that seeems quite plausible, I tend to end sentences with full stops/periods and so I don't see why someone wouldn't on a search term. But there's no point taking them via the DAB (at International Islamic University). Si Trew (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2015 (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.

Ledy Waschingdon[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) 13:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We just deleted WP:RFD#Exselenc Georg General Waschingdon, and we don't have Georg Washingdon or Georg General Waschingdon or General Georg Waschingdon, so I don't think we should have this. In any case I am not sure she was Lady Washington (which is an article about a ship that hatnotes over to Martha), was she? I think she was known, postumously according to her lede, as the First Lady of the United States, but was not a Lady in the British sense of hereditary titles. Si Trew (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Yes, it's from the painting and the other discussion had established that. I wonder if it can be redirected to something about the painting? WhisperToMe (talk) 02:25, 29 April 2015 (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.

Algerian Revolution of 2011[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 as unopposed. Deryck C. 11:04, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Algerian government never changed during the 2010-2012 protests, so it is misleading to use the word revolution. eh bien mon prince (talk) 19:32, 28 April 2015 (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.

When is Christmas[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. I see weak consensus to keep, but as I noted at the similar Berlin Wall discussion, it may be worth a larger discussion to decide how to deal with question-type redirects. --BDD (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've been going through stackloads of these this morning of "who was" or "when was" and in good faith User:Siuenti created this as something of a test case (law) (as Siuenti politely said on my talk page). I say WP:RFD#D5 but actually it is a cunningly good test case, because it is actually useful and marked as R to section. Si Trew (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just added the section link into the nom, @Siuenti: I am sure will not mind that. Si Trew (talk)
  • Keep: not sure how many people need telling when Christmas is, but it seems like a good page to have. 1Potato2Potato3Potato4 (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually, people do need telling when Christmas is. It is celebrated on different days in different countries and different forms of Christianity: In many European countries, the major celebration is either on 24 December (Christmas Eve) or on 5 December (St Nicholas Day). So it is useful. The reason I say delete is as part of the test case: WP:RFD#D2 recently created redirect with no incoming links. This is very much in the nature of a test case to establish consensus on what we do with this, but @Siuenti: has managed to outwit me by coming up with something useful (I take my hat of to Siuenti). It may have been better to invent something preposterous, like When did the last brontosaur die, I'm not sure: maybe by inventing something useful it muddies the waters. Si Trew (talk) 03:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ ; this is a FAQ access type redirection . -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless and likely useful. WP:NOTFAQ is about article content, not about redirects. Redirects such as this also aid search engines to answer questions that people ask them as well as helping directly. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as harmless and possibly useful. The default for redirects, in the absence of harm, is to keep and I am not seeing any policy grounds to delete. Just Chilling (talk) 01:34, 27 April 2015 (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) 17:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible search term with a relevant target. WP:NOTFAQ is not applicable here as it says nothing about redirects, it says that articles shouldn't list FAQs. Hut 8.5 06:54, 5 May 2015 (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.

What is a man?[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 What is man? Baby don't hurt me... (Sorry.) --BDD (talk) 13:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned at target. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral This is an infamously corny line from one of the game's cutscenes, but the line itself is vague enough that perhaps someone searching this (if we need it at all) is looking for something else. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:58, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Retarget to What Is Man? (essay) as a plausible synonym. The target article needs some cleanup though. --Lenticel (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's also a line in the famous song, most notably sung by Frank Sinatra, I Did it My Way; "What is a man, what has he got, if not himself, then not a lot. the record shows, I took the blows, and did it my way". I would have thought we'd have an article on that song but with trying various capitalisations it seems not. We do have Sinatra Doctrine but that seems a stretch. Si Trew (talk) 03:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a primary topic, What Is Man? would seem to be a better place if we were to retarget. But at a glance, perhaps there shouldn't be a primary topic here at all. --BDD (talk) 17:00, 28 April 2015 (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) 17:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are actually a lot more topics than just the King and Twain essays so I created a dab. It's at What is man?. However, there aren't any topics that I could find that are referred to as "What is a man?". In absence of a better target, I'd say weak retarget to What is man?. Tavix | Talk  21:24, 29 April 2015 (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.

When was the Berlin Wall built[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. While we don't need to necessarily stop discussing some of these on a case-by-case basis, I personally think a larger discussion about what to do with redirects like this would be wise. --BDD (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Yahoo! Answers. Questions like these should be taken to the reference desk. Tavix |  Talk  02:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NOTFAQ ; this is a FAQ access type redirect -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems more an Ask Jeeves request, as the first one that allowed natural-language questions (not very well in its early days) but we don't have WP:ASKJEEVES or WP:NOTASKJEEVES, or WP:JEEVES: perhaps we should. I'm going to be a quiz show pannellist and say 1961, without looking up the target. Si Trew (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh I was right. Do I win a teddy bear or goldfish or something? Si Trew (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There are other redirects like this, see Special:PrefixIndex/What_is. I would encourage someone with the time and inclination to nominate those that are not proper names of books, etc. – Fayenatic London 08:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find. I'll do it, but it will take me a while. I have time on my hands. Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I went through all the "Who was" not the "What was" or "When was", this is a bit of a Herculean task, but I'll get there. Si Trew (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTFAQ. Liam987 talk 15:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it takes people to the information they are looking for without harming anything. WP:NOTFAQ is about article content and so is not relevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:20, 20 April 2015 (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) 17:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is a plausible search term and the target is the most relevant page. WP:NOTFAQ says that articles shouldn't contain FAQ content, which isn't what's happening here. Hut 8.5 06:52, 5 May 2015 (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.

Șiștarovăț/version 2[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 per criterion R3 by RHaworth. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirects, and unlikely search terms. All attributions on these redirects have already been moved elsewhere to more appropriate title so their attribution can be retained per WP:A. Steel1943 (talk) 17:34, 28 April 2015 (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.

Draft:Actress, Model Faith Picozzi[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—G8, as the target has been deleted. --BDD (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unlikely entry point for this topic, an irrelevant redirect. It does no harm, but it does no good either Fiddle Faddle 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect serves as a method for the draft's creator to locate their draft, given that the redirect is an {{R from move}} to its current title. (Also, its target, Draft:Faith Picozzi, is currently nominated for MfD. I'd say that the better path would be to await the result of that nomination to then see if this redirect is then eligible for G8 speedy deletion.) Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The author has plenty of links on their talk page to the correct title for the draft. Not that it really matters one way or the other. Fiddle Faddle 17:44, 28 April 2015 (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.

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Jamaica, Barbados, the Bahamas, Grenada, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Belize, Antigua and Barbuda, and St. Kitts and Nevis[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) 13:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect could be useful but it is very big. I am not very sure and I would certainly like to hear a second opinion. The Theosophist (talk) 13:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, (with respect to Her Majesty) these exact words in this order are in the lede at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, the normal way we list royals, ( → Elizabeth II) presumably as WP:PRIMARY) so anyone searching in this way would find it anyway. It does get a few hits bit <1 a day on average, so let the search engine do it. That being said, it's not actually harmful. Si Trew (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is not any of her many official titles. Ivanvector (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's actually also only Elizabeth I in many places (such as Elizabeth I of Scotland and that is witnessed in many ways such as how it is written on pillar boxes, postage stamps and other official documents in Scotland because Elizabeth I → Elizabeth I of England was never their queen, the Act of Union 1707 not having been thought of at the time. I guess technically she is only Elizabeth I in Canada, for similar reasons, but the article at Dei Gratia Regina has a nice picture of a Canadian quarter where it says Elizabeth II. Si Trew (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, she is Elizabeth II in Canada, as well as the other Commonwealth realms she rules. Numbering of monarchs is royal prerogative - as I understand it she could call herself whatever she wants in Canada. The monarchy is legally distinct in each realm but follows from the English line. The numbering has only been controversial within Scotland. During Elizabeth I's reign, Canada was ruled by a number of French kings, and didn't have an English ruler until a century and a half later. Ivanvector (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely a monarch rules all their realm and has one realm? I presume (not checked) "realm" is a modifcation from "regal" in some way. Not really sure, Queen Victoria was proud to be dubbed the Empress of India. As you can tell I am no expert on matters regal (I'd pension them all off meself) but just trying to work out if this is correct or not. Si Trew (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By my understanding, you're right, but it's an odd situation with the Commonwealth. Prior to E2R's coronation, the whole Commonwealth was ruled by the monarchy of England under George VI, but with her coronation, each Commonwealth dominion became a legally distinct monarchy separate from the monarchy of England, thus each now has its own monarch. But through convention or legal agreement or whatever, the dominions agreed in 1952 that Elizabeth II was to be monarch of each particular dominion, with a distinct royal title in each. In regard to this redirect, each dominion holds its own Crown as the highest in that realm, thus, while she is in Canada or acting in her role as the Canadian monarch, her title Queen of Canada (etc) is considered higher than her royal titles in other lands, and when she returns to England she is Queen of England (etc). Nowhere is she ever titled Queen of all of the Commonwealth realms simultaneously. She is also Head of the Commonwealth, which is another distinct title, and interestingly not subject to the same rules of succession. I'm also no expert in this but I seem to have been doing a lot of reading about it lately. Ivanvector (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And indeed it is: apparently Latin: regalimen ultimately, via French: Royaume, according to the article at realm. Queendom → Kingdom by the way, I believe the word was invented by the humourist Alan Coren, he was certainly very fond of it, but would be hard for me to RS that. Si Trew (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ivanvector's explanation and fact that the extreme length makes this implausible as a search term. Why is this the order that was chosen? Is there any reason for that? If it is arbitrary, there could be an insane number of variations on this (I really don't want to do the math either). Tavix | Talk  00:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For screwing up the table of contents on WP:RFD. (really though, unlikely to be useful in any way) No one is going to spend their time typing all of that into a search bar looking for Elizabeth II. (does the search feature work for that long a query?) No one is putting it in an article. There also aren't any other Elizabeth II's as far as I know. Also requesting sanction (half-jokingly) for anyone who linked that redirect in an article for significantly cluttering up that article and making it difficult to edit. ― Padenton|✉   20:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for extremely limited use cases. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2015 (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:Hitler[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. Consensus is quite clear here. --BDD (talk) 13:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this redirect should have been deleted when its brother, WP:HITLER, was deleted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 14 § Wikipedia:HITLER. Fleet Command (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above-noted consensus. Also likely offensive when used in pretty much any context. Perhaps it could target to WP:GODWIN instead. Ivanvector (talk) 15:27, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as possibly harmful especially since it retargets to a page that is designed to lower tensions. --Lenticel (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lenticel: could you elaborate please? I'm not sure I understand. I understand and agree that it would be harmful if editors were using WP:Hitler in comments like "Stop being a WP:Hitler!" or in some wikilawyering accusation, but that usage doesn't really make sense to me. Given the current target, I think this is far more likely to be used against someone who just compared an editor who disagrees with them to the Nazi party and/or Hitler. (i.e. Reductio ad Hitlerum) ― Padenton|✉   21:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you accuse someone as Hitler then chances are s/he'll go for your neck rather than read the blue-link which makes the retargetting kind of pointless. Besides you can pipe so it won't be unusual if people link "Wikipedia:Hitler" as just "HITLER". --Lenticel (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So nice of you to have invited me. I find it strange that I did not participate in the second RfD for WP:HITLER; I don't remember having received an invitation to it either. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per consensus achieved at the previous RfD. It really should have been deleted then. Tavix | Talk  22:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete promptly and for the same reasons discussed in November 2013. Dwpaul Talk 23:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to WP:GODWIN. I made the original redirect as a tongue-in-cheek reference which apparently has rubbed people the wrong way. But the GODWIN reference is specifically about Hitler, so it is just about impossible to misinterpret. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subst and delete. With the deletion of the original redirect; all my arguments in favor keeping it has collapsed. But without substitution, the integrity of the people's messages will be lost. I have an open mind towards substituting and retargetting too. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete because it's unnecessarily derogatory. --Tim (talk) 01:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per the outcome of WP:HITLER, for the same reasons. Sorry I missed it back then. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 08:24, 4 May 2015 (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.

Queen Victoria/version 2[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 per criterion R3 by RHaworth. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a long-unused page which was created for an obscure technical reason. The Theosophist (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nom. looks plausible. But this page had 21 visits during the last 90 day, every time, it was one visit per day. Any idea why? Fleet Command (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Looks like it was overlooked and not tidied up after a previous move. As for the number of visits they don't rise above the level of noise; maybe bots, maybe links from outside WP. It has a little more history than most redirects, so maybe a mirror has an old copy of it that is generating occasional bot visits.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have moved the attribution formerly at this redirect to Queen Victoria (died 1901) so that the attribution can be retained per WP:A. At this point, I'd say that the nominated redirected can be safely deleted due to having no attribution history and being a very unlikely search term. Steel1943 (talk) 17:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Comment I do not find Queen Victoria (died 1901) useful in any sense, other than keeping the attribution. Would it not be better if the attribution was kept through a redirect that could also be helpful in other ways? Victoria, Queen of Great Britain, for example.--The Theosophist (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Theosophist: Its creation is not so that it can be the most useful redirect in existence; its creation is so that the attribution can be somewhere per WP:A. Also, per WP:NCPDAB, this type of disambiguator is a possible consensus-supported option. Anyways, if you feel like nominating that redirect with or without attribution, I would vote "keep" as a valid redirect per WP:NCPDAB standards. Steel1943 (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: Still, if we can have a redirect that both keeps the attribution and is useful in other ways, is it not even better?--The Theosophist (talk) 12:28, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Theosophist: I'm failing to see how my move of the attributions to any plausible title supported by a guideline (which defaults to me believing that the redirect I created is "useful" since there's a guideline supporting its existence) vs. your thought about creating another plausible redirect are connected. However, I do agree that Victoria, Queen of Great Britain is also useful as a redirect, so I created it. Steel1943 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible synonym. Probably a leftover from a technical move so its deletion can be just considered as housekeeping. --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete maintenance cleanup -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2015 (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.

Talk:Steve Crowther[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 per WP:G8 (talk page of a deleted page). My bad; looks I got this wrong before. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article page was deleted but, for reasons unknown, the talk page survived as a redirect to a different page. It has to be deleted. The Theosophist (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2015 (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.

Albemarle County Democratic Committee[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) 13:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should either be deleted as not notable, or retargeted to Albemarle County, Virginia, or to Democratic Party of Virginia. The Theosophist (talk) 13:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • n.b. It's not mentioned in either of those articles either. --BDD (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Someone searching for it would be better served by either of these two, though.--The Theosophist (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at a Special:Search is seems like a number of people named Jefferson came from there (such as Peter Jefferson) but this is blocking my search because all roads end up back here (and with the WP search plugin for Mozilla Firefox). Talk:Thomas Jefferson is in category B-class articles for Albermarle County (I am not sure if it is standard procedure to put those cats on the talk page instead of the article, it rather depends, we've never really been consistent about that, e.g. {{translated page}} goes on the talk page). This is just blocking my search and that is harmful. Therefore my delete. And he was Democratic-Republican anyway, which is hardly the same thing. Si Trew (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2015 (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.

Big fucking deal[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. Although Joe Biden's speech is likely the most notable instance of this phrase, it is not the only obvious target for this redirect. Default to delete in the lack of an agreed alternative target. Deryck C. 11:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is, in the article, mention of his uttering this sentence. However I do not believe that he was the only person that ever uttered it nor that it was so notable that it should redirect to him. The Theosophist (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible redirect. We've had such items deleted before. Something that comes to my mind is the tongue-in-cheek "WTF" template and a "HITLER" redirect. Fleet Command (talk) 13:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an example of tmesis, i.e. putting one word inside another phrase . And tmesis I believe is the only word in English to start with "tm". Fan-bloody-tastic. Si Trew (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SimonTrew: I did use tmesis in my nomination. I cannot see why is that a reason for you to vote Keep, though.--The Theosophist (talk) 15:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@The Theosophist: I probably did not put myself well. What I meant was that I think that @FleetCommand:'s argument is invalid because this is a perfectly valid expression, and attempted to explain why. All searches I get refer to Joe Biden, so I think it is perfectly valid to keep it, as BDD says immediately below as an {{R from quotation}}, and it is at the article. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep This seems to be a valid {{R from quotation}}, especially if it's mentioned at the article. Yes, others have spoken these three words together, but are there any other notable instances of someone doing so? --BDD (talk) 16:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: The question is: is this instance notable enough for the words “big fucking deal” to link to the Vice President of the United States?--The Theosophist (talk) 16:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's notable enough to appear in his article and no others, then yes, I'd say so. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2015 (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.

Baraka Hussein Abu oumama[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) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible typo. The Theosophist (talk) 12:48, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is, apparently, an Arabic form of Obama's name. Qaddafi used this is a letter to Obama he wrote in 2011, full text here. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This does not appear notable and is not mentioned in the article.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:41, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Err no, it's not any clear form of Arabic for Obama. It rather seems to have been Qadhdhafi screwing around or mocking the Obama family name (which is Kenyan of course and nothing to do with Arabic as such). DELETE collounsbury (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's the title of the article at that external link. However I think the translator has not a first-rate grasp of english since "campaigne" is thus spelled, NATO is not properly capitalised, and "That America helps only" is grammatically correct but should be "That only helps America" (i.e. it helps no-one else), not that Libya is the only country that America helps. Since it is signed by Mu'aumer Qaddaffi I wonder if the translator slipped and got "Oumama" instead of "Obama" because of the cognitive dissonance with Muammar Quadaffi (which we don't have but the article resides atMuammar Gaddafi), but that's pure speculation on my part. Arabic has B as the second letter of its alphabet (bā), just like the Latin alphabet so there's no reason it would be transliterated this way (the difficulty transliterating kh- or gh- sounds as Q or G is far more understandable as we don't really have that sound in English). Si Trew (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2015 (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.

Maliciously[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 all. Deryck C. 15:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are probably better off at the disambiguation page Malice instead of to the the legal term. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - The legal term is the only entry on the disambiguation page to which these terms could refer; all of the others are proper nouns. Neelix (talk) 01:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget all to Malevolence, a disambiguation page with several related entries listed at the top. (By the way, that disambiguation page needs some serious cleanup, but it seems like the best option, especially considering that the title "Malice (law)" contains a disambiguator.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If any of those entries could be referred to by the terms above, then the entries should be added to the Malice disambiguation page, which would then be an appropriate target for these redirects. Neelix (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think that "Malice" is a particular term in US law in various states and does not, for example, exist in the United Kingdom ("Absence of Malice" being the most obvious from Agatha Christie I think, so this is not WP:WORLDWIDE. I think it is a fairly common term but in the US most states make a distinction between a felony and a misdemeanor which has been lost in UK law, and really it is absense of malice that is the difference. I think best to DAB it, but not sure about the adjectival forms. Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 14 April 2015 (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) 13:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Neelix. We're not a dictionary, and none of the other uses seem relevant. --BDD (talk) 14:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 10:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Makes article writing law articles easier. One simply encloses stuff into [[ and ]] as one writes. I strongly oppose redirect target change without careful analysis of current uses. Fleet Command (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per FleetCommand.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, these are all forms of a term, and the legal term is the only term at the page. Also: "someone finds them useful" at that target. Tavix | Talk  00:50, 4 May 2015 (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.

The Ice Age Movies[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 6#The Ice Age Movies

IOS 9[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 between retargeting and deletion, default to delete. Deryck C. 15:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistent Wikipedia is not a crystal ball - TheChampionMan1234 03:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to History of iOS#Versions. There is much coverage about the future iOS 9, e.g [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] so it is almost certain that people will be searching Wikipedia for it, and that section seems to be the best place to add content about it in advance of there being enough to write an article. While there isn't content there yet, it educates people that there isn't a version 9 yet but gives them the information about what other versions do exist, which is the most helpful to them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects must lead people to information. This doesn't. It sends people on a wild goose chase to a long article. I think the annoying practice of creating a redirect for next version of a popular computer program must be outlawed. (What's the Wikipedia term? Out-policy-ed?) But I tell you, if this practice gains consensus, I am going to make "Windows 11" through "Windows 128" and "iOS 9" through "iOS 99" all in one day. (Some people choose to read the last statement as a threat, some as a statement of cooperation. What is your take?) Fleet Command (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As a respect for consensus, even when it sounds insane.--The Theosophist (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It reads to me as a reductio ad absurdum argument. These redirects should only exist in cases where it is likely that people will be looking for information about them on Wikipedia. I've demonstrated the case that is the case for iOS 9, but it would not be the case at all for Windows 13+ (Windows 11 and Windows 12 I'd need to actually investigate, and I haven't got time for that atm). The solution to there being no information about iOS 9 at the target currently is simply to add it - the existence of predictions about it in reliable sources is easy to verify (and that does not fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL). Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And to me. Creation is not the inverse of deletion. If something has been create for whatever reason, then we have to consider what harm or good would be done by its deletion (or retargeting, etc): that's no excuse for threatening to create hundreds of useless redirects (and yes, threat is my take). Si Trew (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed reductio ad absurdum; that's how I respond when I see absurditas. How many times people made Windows 9 redirects while there was zero solid information about it? (Only today we know there was never a Windows 9.) If Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, then it stands to reason not to tolerate giving the impression that someone somewhere had seen something in some crystal ball in it. Fleet Command (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as suggested. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we can include sourced statements about the topic somewhere, that changes things. For now, we have nothing to say about iOS, so this redirect is destined to mislead and disappoint readers. Please think of them first. --BDD (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2015 (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/2015_April_28&oldid=1136448197"