Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 2, 2015.

Donphan 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a joke. Donphan is a elephant-like Pokemon character. The target, Joseph Merrick, was called "The Elephant Man" in freak shows so most of the redirects to the target are correct. The concept that he may be called "Donphan man" is ludicrous, especially since the target lived in Victorian England. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unlikely redirect. It's also kind of mean. --Lenticel (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nonsense. Per Lenticel. Ivanvector (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Late runner. I know this is an outside chance, but would Merrick by any chance be called (back translation) "Dolphin Man" in Japanese as the translation of "Elephant Man"? There's lots of Nihongo links at the DAB Elephant Man and the articles it links to, but none lists the Japanese as that. Even then it's a stretch from "Donphan" to "Dolphin" but since the L is essentially silent in English (it modifies the O a little as the tongue and lips gliss to make the F fricative) it could go as nearer the Fr. Dauphan but that really is a stretch, and N is fairly strongly sounded nihingo if I recall correctly. Si Trew (talk) 00:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if they did I doubt that many of these people would go to the English Wikipedia to search this and if they did they would likely be familiar enough with the language to know the elephant man spelling. I see this redirect as having limited benefits at best.--67.68.211.169 (talk) 06:38, 6 February 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.

Zionist Crusade[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) 19:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV, racism, etc. Pretty sure there aren't any mainstream, reliable sources that refer to the war on terror as a Zionist Crusade. User's only other contribution is redirecting War on freedom to War on Terror, will be RFDing that as well. Noformation Talk 11:18, 25 January 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) 18:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Si and Ivan, I think that's a really problematic suggestion. First of all, we effectively can't retarget to Zionist Movement, which is itself a redirect; this would result in retargeting to Zionism. "Crusade" isn't mentioned at that article, except for a link to the Crusades on the {{History of Israel}} navbox. So even if this weren't a charged term, a reader searching for "Zionist Crusade" is already going to be aware of the concept of Zionism, or know enough to look for it directly. --BDD (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Noformation, Tom Morris, and BDD. I can't find a suitable alternative target so we should delete as a redirect that does harm. Mr. Guye (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see the merits of the retarget votes but I think it will open a can of worms that will do more harm than good. --Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - odd, the helper script didn't flag Zionist Movement as a redirect when I !voted before. Mr. Guye is right, we should delete this. Ivanvector (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
HadZionist Movement been a redirect, I wouldn't have suggested it at that time. All bets are void with that retarget, and all money returned. Si Trew (talk) 00:06, 6 February 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.

Heather Bresch M.B.A. controversy[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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article was renamed over BLP concerns. Maintaining the redirect continues to raise those concerns. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- none of the 10 conditions given for deletion at WP:RFD#DELETE are indicated here. As for BLP: the article on Heather Bresch includes coverage of the topic matter treated in this separate article (together with a "main article" link), so it's hard to see why we need to delete a redirect with her name. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Readers who seek encyclopedic content after reading news articles about the controversy are likely to type her name into the search box. Although the title is somewhat POV, this is far less of a concern for a redirect per WP:RNEUTRAL 1 and 3.- MrX 17:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Searching for her name will still bring up the article, as long as it mentions her by name, which I don't see as an issue. I just don't like it jumping right out at you like that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fair point. I certainly won't loose any sleep if we lose this redirect. I'm sure the controversy article is linked from her bio anyway.- MrX 17:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, the main reason I raised the issue of the redirect was because the redirect makes the page title (which was considered to be a BLP problem) a top search result for "Heather Bresch", making the rename mostly in-effective at addressing the BLP concern it was renamed for. I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does no harm. Target also covers redirect name extensively. --Mr. Guye (talk) 00:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's quite well documented that this was a controversy in which she played a central role. It's not a BLP violation to say so. Ivanvector (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well put. Exactly. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I note Heather Bresch MBA controversy and West Virginia University MBA controversy are red. Does anybody other than me check the {{R from alternative punctuation}}s? You think people are going to type in those dots? Si Trew (talk) 00:12, 6 February 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.

Don (character )[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) 18:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

typographical error. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:14, 2 February 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.

Finnur Jónsson (disambiguation)[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) 18:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a redirect title which can only mislead - there is no disambiguation page when you are redirected. Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was looking through the history of this page and saw it used to look like this. The first entry there has an article on Icelandic Wikipedia, so perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to translate that. I don't think there would be a primary topic between him and the existing article, and the other two could still be redlinked. I'm not sure about the artist, but the politician should meet WP:NPOL as a member of the Althing. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The other two couldn't be redlinked because they don't meet MOS:DABRL and the politician doesn't meet MOS:DABRL either. None of the others are valid entries, although at some point they could be. Turning this page into a dab isn't an option because if they are equally notable, the dab would be at the primary page, Fnnur Jonsson, not Finnur Jonsson (disambiguation). If someone did create an article on the politician, and if the two people were equally notable, then there still would be no need for this page, because the dab would be at the primary page, Finnur Jonsson, not Finnur Jonsson (disambiguation). Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, of course. I've made Finnur Jónsson (bishop), and at a glance, many of the incoming links to the base title may refer to him. How about moving the existing article and having a dab again? --BDD (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, it would still be better with hatnotes; if neither is the primary, it should be a requested move (WP:RM), Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 4 February 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_February_2&oldid=1138580069"