Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 19, 2015.

NWA Australian National Championship[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 procedural close. If I've read this correctly, this is now redirecting to NWA Australian National Heavyweight Championship, which is now at AfD. Should that article be deleted, this redirect will be on G8 grounds, so please comment there or let me know if there's any misunderstanding. Happy Australia Day, by the way, to our friends Down Under. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is part of a tactic by User:Pidzz to use IP socks to create non notable articles. Deletion is needed to short circuit this. Title is not notable and not a common enough term to warrant a redirect - and Pidzz needs to be closely watched for future moves like this one. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also NWA Australian National Heavyweight Championship where his IP sock has been active and then redirected also! Adding as a bundle. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refuse jurisdiction. This is not a place to discuss an WP:EDITWAR, that should go ideally to the talk pages of the two users involved, and if not, escalate up through to WP:ANI or something. This is an editorial dispute and allegations of WP:SOCK should be made at the appropriate places, not here. There is no way to sort the redirect until the dispute itself is sorted. I don't see the bundle to which the nominator refers. I don't see from its history that it was the result of a page move, and certainly is not marked as {{R from move}}, no bot has been involved with it, and it seems a useful {{R from fulll name}}. I'm minded of WP:NPA also. Si Trew (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I'll withdraw it and I'll restore the edit that wasn't a redirect - and send it to AfD instead. Curse of Fenric (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I got a bit trigger-happy having done my first non-admin close, and closed this one thinking it had been restored to an article, and closed as procedural close as withdrawn by nominator. But as it stands it is still an R and those things have not been done, so it should stand here until they are. My fault. Si Trew (talk) 12:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now you can do it. I've changed the redirection to the article for AfD as that's more appropriate, and should the AfD go "delete" I can bring it back here under the correct jurisdiction. Curse of Fenric (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Curse of Fenric: As far as I see you have not restored it to an article, and in its brief life it never has been an article, but always a redirect with it being retargeted several times. I was misled, but I thought you were going to change it from a redirect to an article, but you retargeted to NWA Australian National Heavyweight Championship (Where it lay a few days ago). I see from the edit history it was created on 15 January and then you nominated here on 20 January, then IP editor 59.101.110.240 changed the target, then 138.217.67.149 listed it again here on 22 January. I think, then, we are only discussing the redirect not its content? It can go WP:RFD#D8 as "a very novel or obscure synonym", but as it stands it is still a redirect and not an article.
I can see your bind in that you want these deleted and I in no way think that you are casting around for fora on which to discuss it; even WP:FORUM and WP:CANVASSING are not much help to you, and I neither. I do appreciate you are in good faith, but this does rather fall between the cracks in the pavement. Were it me nominating, I would stick with this one before you then do the other R's you alluded to: once we have consensus about generally what should happen, then it should be easier to refer back to consensus here or at AfD, but at the moment there is no consensus that I see. Si Trew (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
q.v. for example User:Oiyarbepsy's numerous listings here for Mojibake. They usually get deleted in my words by a "silent majority" because they're so obviously harmful that to discuss them makes them more difficult to delete. Having the broad consensus that Mojibake = Bad, we then only discuss individual cases (as for example I did with a couple for Pokémon). Si Trew (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly off-topic, but I don't think I've nominated any mojibake redirects for deletion, but I have routinely voted to delete them. You might be thinking of User:Gorobay. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Haha Oiyarbepsy, yes I was, thanks for correcting me there. Si Trew (talk) 07:45, 26 January 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.

United States of Arabia[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) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not actually a thing. There is a concept of an Arab union (where the redirect now points) but it is only rarely referred to as "United States of Arabia". It appears to be used just as much to refer to the United States of America by news-radio loudmouths. Creator is a banned sock, but was not banned at time of article creation. Ivanvector (talk) 23:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as below, re United States of Britain - unrealistic search term, without a readily apparent single redirect target, created by user with rather bizarre agenda. Mabalu (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I flirted with United Arab Emirates, but surely Delete as WP:RFD#D8, "novel or obscure synonym". Si Trew (talk) 05:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I am not sure on this one. It could go to Saudi Arabia for that matter, but I am not sure (and we do have to be WP:CRYSTAL here) what would people want to find when they looked at it. I'm still inclined to delete or DAB it maybe, so I've made a draft at Draft:United States of Arabia with just these two so far (obviously that wouldn't be a good DAB as it stands). This one is perhaps RS:
  • Batarfi, Khaled M. (1 January 2013). "United States of Arabia: Meeting old and new challenges". Al Arabiya. Retrieved 21 January 2015.
But that is a Saudi-owned state channel is perhaps primary source, I am not sure that matters here in that we are not discussing its content but the fact that the Saud kingdom itself says "United States of Arabia" in its own literature, and in that sense is reliable as a source for what the Saud government/kingdom says, but as that is a primary source. Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that at the draft DAB. DABS don't usually have, but sometimes have, references: this is a holding draft and I would add references etc. into the article, depending on the result of this discussion, so I don't want to do so right now. Si Trew (talk) 08:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whmm, what might queer my pitch there is that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia went and died on me, I wrote the above before he shuffled off the mortal, but I can see it might somehow seem as a POV, which it certainly wasn't. Si Trew (talk) 00:05, 23 January 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.

United States of Britain[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) 20:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. Created by a sock of a banned user, but not banned at the time of creation, so WP:G5 doesn't apply. Ivanvector (talk) 23:53, 19 January 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.

World dictator[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 World domination. Non-admin closure by Si Trew (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created by suspected sockpuppet. Current target is World government. However, the idea of a world dictator is typical of this editor and his sockpuppets' rather problematic, disruptive and contentious edits and created redirects. Mabalu (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as useless. Legacypac (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:G5 revised, see below User is a banned sock, redirect is useless and there is no meaningful history. Ivanvector (talk) 23:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ivanvector - this user has made a LOT of bizarre redirects under their socks. Can I request a speedy on these using G5 criteria? Mabalu (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say so, unless they are useful, but I'm not an admin. This one is nonsense and probably misleading, but perhaps Extradition in the United States redirecting to Extradition law in the United States is a useful redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 23:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are SOME reasonable redirects, but others are just bizarre. Mabalu (talk) 23:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now I have to try out my first non-admin close, so wish me luck (this is a placeholder so I can at least undo back to this one!). Si Trew (talk) 10:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the suggested redirect target. I'm sure a sock will be along to redirect it back to their chosen page but that works. Mabalu (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be so sad, whatever the outcome of this, you can at least refer to this consensus, so then you can boldly continue. Si Trew (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose to speedily close as retarget, the nominator agrees with my proposal, and seems to be WP:SNOWBALLing. @Lenticel:, do you agree (as it stands your agreeing with a delete that the nominator no longer agrees with)? Si Trew (talk) 10:10, 22 January 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_January_19&oldid=1039436970"