Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28[edit]

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

Non-random[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) 14:20, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this is incorrect? JZCL 20:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No, it is perfectly correct in statistics; to say that something is non-random is to say "this is not what we would expect from the expected chi-square mean distrubution, roughly, but that the, say, 95% chi square distribution is outside that may be attributable to some other causation or correlation, and thus not random but explicable to tend towards the norm.
So to be non-random is perfectly fine to fit that technical, statistical sense, statistical noise means randomness here, but that is a DAB to Gaussian noise and White noise. (WP:TWODABS). Si Trew (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC) (Incorporated Member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, if it matters.)[reply]
    • Thanks, I am not sure if Oiyarbepsy did this or me (I intended to), so if I did and didn't say so, then sorry about that. Happy St David's Day. Si Trew (talk) 06:11, 1 March 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.

Jared McDonald[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) 14:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a hoax - can't find anything on Google and the name Jared doesn't come up in the article. JZCL 20:34, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I haven't looked yet but I do think we have had this particular name before. Patently not exactly (perhaps Mac, etc.) and deliberately not looking. These are all schoolboy pranks and let them have their fun: But I do say, I got an apology from an English public school in 2011 from his pupils doing this kind of thing. I didn't ask for it but apparently I was Wikipedia at that time in his eyes, I can imagine the lecture "An editor at Wikipedia told me that some of you boys have been playing putting silly names in.... now I have this letter from an editor at Wikipedia...." Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC) But Wikipedia is not a school playground and these R's are. Si Trew (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to my Google Book search, this entry can pertain to multiple Jared McDonald's. It's probably best to redlink this entry since I can't gauge which of the Jared's that I found pass notability.`-Lenticel (talk) 07:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsensical -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:25, 1 March 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.

Category:Buddhist deities, bodhisattvas, and demons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Wrong forum, Refuse jurisdiction Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bodhisattvas, Category:Buddhist deities and Category:Buddhist demons. Deities may be also classified as demons due to the redirect. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wrong forum. Editor knows well enough to list at the right one, and is [[WP:CANVASSING]. Si Trew (talk) 21:18, 28 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.

Worst defenceman ever[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) 15:46, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit NPOV. JZCL 15:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep. Out of context it does seem NPOV but the article notes that (a big part of) the reason for his notability is "posting the worst plus/minus rating in single-season NHL history at -82 for the Washington Capitals in 1974–75.". If there are other people who have a claim to this title then we could disambiguate, but "Defenceman" is a term used only in ice hockey. Thryduulf (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't matter if sources have said he's bad, we need sources who have actual called him worst defenceman ever, as if it's his nickname. We don't have that, or I don't see the evidence. This should perhaps be closed early as an attack page. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, the plus minus rating mentioned shows that he was not a good defenceman but we still need evidence that he has actually been called the worst defenceman ever.--67.68.30.108 (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about him being called the "worst defenceman ever" but him statistically being the worst. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would see that a case of Wikipedia making its now analysis making It an inappropriate redirect. The way I see it the term should be in use first.--67.68.30.108 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't Wikipedia's analysis, it is the objective ranking used in the sport that we're simply reporting. The term does not need to be in use if it is not about the term (which it isn't). This is a likely search term for people looking for either people called the worst, or people who statistically are the worst - as long as the target is clear as to which it is (and both my suggestions are) then there is no problem at all with neutrality. Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #3 --Lenticel (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete many D-men have been called that, there's no proper target -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget. People looking for this could be looking for someone called this as a nickname or epithet, or to find out who was the worst ever. We have two possible targets for the latter, Plus-minus#Notable players (NHL) and List of NHL records (individual)#Plus/minus, although neither are sorted by position. Of the two I slightly prefer the former. Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, in my opinion this is a clear violation of WP:RFD#DELETE #3. If this was to be retargeted somewhere, it'd have to be a List of defencemen that have been called the worst or similar list. It would also encompass any sport that has a defense. I really don't think that's a good idea (for a number of reasons, WP:SALAT being one of them) so delete it. Tavix |  Talk  20:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It wouldn't need to incorporate all sports as, per our defenceman article, ice hockey is the only sport that uses the term. Other sports used "defender" and similar and would need only a hatnote or see also. I also disagree that it would need to be about people who have been called the worst, people who are the worst by the standard ranking in the sport is an equally valid list (indeed being objective possibly even more so). Thryduulf (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a hockey fan who doesn't follow a lot of other sports, that actually surprised me that ice hockey is the only sport that uses that term. I see what you're saying about putting a statistical list together. I looked, but couldn't find the required data for it though. Tavix |  Talk  13:14, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absent confirmation he is verifiably the worst defenceman ever, this is speedy delete WP:G10 (pages which disparage and serve no other purpose). If this discussion decides to retarget then a new redirect should be created in place. Ivanvector (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ivanvector: If you read the article you will see that the verification is there. Speedy deletion, or deletion prior to retargetting, is not required. Thryduulf (talk)
      • Come on now, that is not verification of "worst defenceman ever". Worst plus-minus ever, yes, but it takes more than just being on the ice for a lot of opposing goals to make a defensive player the "worst ever". This is a superlative claim and I don't see that any source has actually called him the "worst defenceman ever". He's not even on this list of the top 10 worst NHLers, this one has him #6 with other defenceman rated worse, a Facebook post says it's Ryan Suter, this hockey forum says it's Sergei Bautin, there are a number of sources we might otherwise call reliable opining on various current members of the Toronto Maple Leafs being the worst defencemen ever, and so on. We also don't have a source clearly stating that the worst defenceman ever would be declared so based only on plus-minus rating. This redirect is WP:BLP-violating WP:SYNTH (mild, I'll admit, but I don't believe there is cause to grade BLP violations). I may be being pedantic, but I stand by it in this case. Mikkelson should not be associated with this. Ivanvector (talk) 23:04, 3 March 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.

Anura.[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 Anura. --BDD (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anura. is a very rare typos for Aruṇa Redtigerxyz Talk 12:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • But is it a commoner typo for anything else? Si Trew (talk) 21:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Anura instead. --Lenticel (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delte or retarget per Lenticel -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've also added Aruna to the Anura dab page just in case people do get the two confused --Lenticel (talk) 00:01, 4 March 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.

Hagiology Publishing[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) 15:44, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This redirect points to a section of an article that has been deleted as its subject was deemed non-notable. Since the content no longer exists, there is no reason to have a redirect pointing people to that content. Quite a few articles point to the redirect page, but they can easily be unlinked. – PeeJay 00:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target's history is very busy so it's hard to find when the removal was made.
There's no sensible retarget as it's used in so many articles, so I have to say Weak Delete as WP:RFD#D7. I'll take speedy WP:G8 as suggested there. Si Trew (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without prejudice, I've marked it as {{R to section}}. Si Trew (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For whatever it may be worth, it was finally removed 16:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC), shortly after Daemonic Kangaroo left Wikipedia. —teb728 t c 10:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:REDLINK if this appears in so many biographies, then it should be a redlink to encourage creating an article -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is confusing to click on a link for a publisher and wind up at the top of an article on a football club. Remove the red links, for there is no prospect of recreating the deleted article. —teb728 t c 10:25, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if it's a non-notable topic then we should de-link the redlinks, easy enough with AWB. GiantSnowman 16:20, 6 March 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.

Template:RHI Team[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unused & unlikely redirect Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Harmless, and has been around since 2011 when it was moved to the current target. Without prejudice, I've marked as {{R from move}}. Si Trew (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Si Trew. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can't see how this is "unlikely" it seems very likely to me -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 08:29, 1 March 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_28&oldid=1138580109"