Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 6, 2015.

Viti References[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, G6. by Nyttend Lenticel (talk) 00:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This only existed as a page very briefly (after someone moved Viti to it incorrectly - it's been moved back now) and there aren't any incoming links to it, so there's no need to keep it as a redirect. Squinge (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deleted. This was created to facilitate a copy/paste move (see explanation), so deleting it as G6, housekeeping, is a reasonable part of the cleanup process. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 7 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.

Umer Farooq[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 by Nick, assumably for speedy deletion criterion R2, and possibly G8. Steel1943 (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's a redirect from the mainspace to a draft. --AmaryllisGardener talk 15:04, 6 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.

Several redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa[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 convoluted. See comments below. --Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are still many spurious redirects to Pearlasia Gamboa that need to be cleaned out. These are pseudonyms used by her husband (his article has been redirected to Dominion of Melchizedek), so they're unlikely search terms for her. Some of them additionally present WP:BLP issues. --BDD (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2014 (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) 15:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Si Trew (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking at this whole convoluted and, frankly, nuts area. So I actually know who these names refer to (or think I do; you can never be certain with these guys).
  • Delete. John Bower (Michael Bower). Either her son in law, Michael (presumably middle name John) Bower, or (more improbably) that chap's father.[1] No notable mention of either of them anywhere I could find.
  • Delete. Branch (Gamboa). Not sure whether this is referring to her son, Hazemach, or her husband (one of his aliases is Tzemach). Both of those names mean, AFAIK, something like "branch" in Hebrew. Son not notable, husband never referred to as Branch Gamboa.
  • Redirect. Mark Wellington. Mentioned as an alias, and cited to Forbes, in her husband's entry. He probably should have his own page, but that's a different matter. Redirect to Dominion_of_Melchizedek#Mark_Logan_Pedley.
  • Delete. Jack Williams (David Korem). Anyone searching for David Korem, her father-in-law, will find him, as there's a David Korem redirect. Jack Williams is one of his son's aliases,[2] but it hasn't been mentioned in his entry. Perhaps it should be, and a Jack Williams redirect added to the disam page, but it seems to be a minor alias if it's not mentioned in articles like the Forbes one.
  • Delete. David KorMAN & David Koram. Misspellings not seen outside of WP designed to redirect people searching for her husband's father, David Korem. There is a David Korman alias mentioned by the SEC (confusingly relating to his son, Mark),[3] but it seems to be a minor one as it's not mentioned in other sources like Forbes. Bromley86 (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing comment All participants were in favor of deletion for several of them, but three were convoluted. The majority were in favor of deleting each one, but these three got one don't-delete each, and the whole discussion was difficult to assess; Bromley86 had a good description in calling it "this whole convoluted and, frankly, nuts area", and the two most helpful votes were split between deletes and don't-deletes. Since none of the redirects are outright harmful, I figured we'd get the best result if I just kept them and immediately relisted them; I've created new nominations for them at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 4, and your participation would be welcome. Nyttend (talk) 19:09, 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.

Indepedent Access[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 27#Indepedent Access

Cubic statute mile[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) 14:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE #8. “Cubic statute mile” does not seem to be a phrase in common use and in fact the Google hits for it mostly point to the redirect author’s single source. JoeSperrazza (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep. Although the phrase is little used outside that one source (of dubious reliability at best) it is not implausible, and if someone does use it the target is the correct one. The redirect is too recent for there to be any reliable usage figures, particularly with the author's edits being analysed at ANI. None of these are reasons to delete and so there is no benefit to deletion, and a possible small benefit to keeping. When we have at least three (ideally at least six) full calendar months when this redirect is not listed at RfD and not subject to discussion elsewhere, then probably reliable usage figures will be available and it can be reconsidered if it turns out not to be used. Thryduulf (talk) 16:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The chances of anyone searching for this non-existent unit are vanishingly small, let alone the chances of our desperate reader not then searching for "cubic mile". It's better to delete absurdities as soon as they're discovered than require editors to diarise the necessary details. NebY (talk) 16:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: probably fairly useless, but harmless and one of the least of our problems in the vexed area of silly units at the moment. It's not actually wrong, confusing, poorly written, or misleading, which sets it above a lot of other matter in this area. PamD 19:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reliable sources and very implasable term. Legacypac (talk) 13:19, 5 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) 14:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Without modification, "mile" means "statute mile", so it's just an alternate name for "cubic mile". Nyttend (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#K4, "You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect." The unit, as a derived unit, does exist (my Google even tops its search resuls with a handy conversion to cubic metres) and I could see it might be marginally useful to distinguish from a cubic nautical mile or some such. Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to unambiguously direct readers to what they're looking for. Uncommon, but not implausible, search term. WilyD 11:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BLUE or WP:CK (common knowledge being that a mile in common usage is a statute mile), and per WP:CHEAP. Cubic mile describes the measurement of a cube measuring the exact length of 1 statute mile on each side (and not some other measure also called a mile, like a nautical mile or whatever) therefore "cubic statute mile" refers to exactly the same thing. I think that it would be impractical to measure a cubic nautical mile anyway, since it's based on the arc length of a meridian minute and that length changes with altitude. Ivanvector (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A nautical mile is 1,852 metres by definition. Si Trew (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'm going off a historic definition. Imperial measurements are fun! Ivanvector (talk) 22:30, 7 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.

Return of Donkey Kong[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 13#Return of Donkey Kong

Donkey Kong Crunch[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 13#Donkey Kong Crunch

The pro-life supporters[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 retargeted to Anti-abortion movements (note that Pro-life is itself a redirect). --BDD (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect's current target is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and every policy that applies specifically to redirects. Everymorning talk 03:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just redirect to Pro-life. No discussion necessary. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have done this. Thanks for the suggestion Oiyarbepsy. Consider this discussion closed. Everymorning talk 03:27, 6 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.

You magazine[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 You (disambiguation)#Magazines. --BDD (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tar pit.

That's all rather WP:SURPRISEing; has there been some kind of battle for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC? If so, whoever won has a phyrric victory. Seems to me if there are two magayines called "YOU" then hatnotes would serve the turn quite adequately. But then, the UK Mail on Sunday#Sections include a magazine called "You", and has done since I was just a glint in the milkman's eye, and that's used in a lot of references across Wikipedia, but not mentioned on the DAB at all. Si Trew (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • retarget to the disambiguation page. As there are multiple magazines with this name, no obvious candidate for primary topic and an existing dab page that mentions both main contenders the solution should be obvious. You don't need an RfD discussion to add missing entries to a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 6 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.

Whether you like it or not I did all the work and I don't like that NiceGuy claims he had to clean up when I left a few entrails I was about to clean up in my old handed manual way with a list on my desk of which to do before a smartarse wizard beat me to it. You may be nice but you ain't clever. Si Trew (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_6&oldid=1138580186"