Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 25, 2015.

User:Sesotho kinship[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. Should never have been brought here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible cross-namespace redirect seemingly left over after mistake moving. Page did not exist at this address for any length of time, no incoming links, no need to keep. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete housekeeping; result of a bad move that was immediately fixed -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 09:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete criteron WP:G6 - cleanup from botched page move. I assume uncontroversial since the user who created it is the user who drafted the article, and they immediately moved the article to mainspace themselves. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:06, 28 July 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.

Gymnodiniales[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. My brain needs to catch up with twinkle. It's a stub now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from an order to just one of the genera within it, whose intervening family - Gymnodiniaceae - is a redlink. Maybe useful when first created, but now actively harmful for navigation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:08, 25 July 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.

Delhi Legislative Assembly election, 1983[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) 14:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There were no Legislative Assemble election in Delhi in 1983, as Delhi was under President's rule since the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. Next Legislative elections were held in 1993. So this page shouldn't exist. Instead it has been correctly placed under the name of Delhi Metropolitan Council election, 1983. So this page should be deleted. Logical1004 (talk) 08:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - misleading, since there was no Legislative Assembly to elect in 1983, if I'm reading nom's comment right. There was no election, anyway. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Redirect from a move [1]. Delhi Metropolitan Council election, 1983 was incorrectly titled this. It will only break one user talk link [2]. I doubt this will be searched for specifically, and using it as a wikilink in an article would be stating something that never happened.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:46, 2 August 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.

Victoria Taylor[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 dabify. Procedurally, recreating this title as a redirect was fine, but there's consensus that there are at least three people as notable as each other (by our standards), so disambiguation it is. And who knows? The former Reddit employee may end up being a WP:BLP1E, while the politician could end up in Parliament one day. This is the best we can do for now. --BDD (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this article was deleted via a full deletion debate a few days ago. A CSD G4 nomination was declined because "we haven't had a discussion on the redirect". I disagree; "redirect" is a valid close on AfD. If the community has decided there should be no way to associate Victoria Taylor with Reddit, then we should go with that. Pinging @Sandstein: who closed the AfD, @Mz7: who created the redirect after the AfD closed and @JamesBWatson: who declined the speedy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the AfD closer, I'm of the view that the AfD does not prevent (or mandate) a redirect. The issue of redirecting was not discussed. The AfD was concerned with whether we should have a separate article about the topic, to which the answer was "no". Creating a redirect is not incompatible with that outcome. The redirect should therefore be discussed on its own merits. As long as the subject is discussed in the target article, and readers are likely to search for it, I think that a redirect is useful. To both questions the answer seems currently to be "yes."  Sandstein  08:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I initially had no opinion at all about whether the redirect should be kept, and I certainly wouldn't have taken part in this discussion, except for the fact that Ritchie333 has chosen to ping me, so I came here just to reply to him. In the course of checking things in order to be able to properly answer him, I found further information which led me to form an opinion on the redirect, and I shall give that opinion below, but first I shall reply to Ritchie333's criticisms of my decline of his speedy deletion nomination. (1) Yes, of course "redirect" is a valid close on AfD, but that does not mean that a close of "delete" means "delete and ban anyone from ever in the future deciding to create a redirect with the title". (In fact, it is very common indeed for a redirect to be created when an AfD has concluded "delete".) Ritchie333's speedy deletion rationale was "a page that was previously deleted via a deletion discussion, is substantially identical to the deleted version, and any changes do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted" (G4). There is no reasonable way of thinking that a redirect is "substantially identical" to the deleted article, so how anyone can think that is a valid speedy deletion reason I can't imagine. (2) "If the community has decided there should be no way to associate Victoria Taylor with Reddit, then we should go with that." Yes, but I don't see anywhere that "the community has decided there should be no way to associate Victoria Taylor with Reddit": I see only that the community has decided that there should not be an article about Victoria Taylor. That leaves completely open the question of whether she should be mentioned in connection with Reddit in other ways than in an article about her. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Victoria Taylor is mentioned three times in the article Reddit. She has received a significant amount of news coverage in connection with Reddit, so it is likely that people will search for her on Wikipedia. If they do, the redirect will take them to the information about her. What is more, that information will be in the article about the subject in relation to which she has received public attention, so it will almost certainly be exactly what they were looking for. Thus, the redirect serves exactly the purpose for which redirects are intended: directing readers to information about a subject which is not notable enough to be the subject of an article, but which is mentioned in an article on another subject. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are several other non-notable people by the name of Victoria Taylor also mentioned in Wikipedia: wife of Charles Taylor (Liberian politician) (the top hit in Google News if you restrict it to pre-2015 results); candidate in West Sussex County Council election, 2013; etc. We could create a page full of WP:DABMENTIONs. I'm not a big fan of these but RFD has accepted that as a solution a few times (e.g. Mandy Lee from a couple of weeks ago). 58.176.246.42 (talk) 09:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This probably warrants a discussion elsewhere, but I had always thought a "Delete" close at AfD means "not even a redirect, thanks". Otherwise I think it should have been closed as "Merge / redirect with Reddit". On a number of occasions, I have declined CSD A7 tags with a rationale similar to "have you considered a redirect?" When I applied the G4 tag, I suggested anyone who disagreed (and I anticipated somebody would) to go to WP:DRV. Still, we're here now so this is a good place to thrash this out. I don't particularly mind the redirect existing, I was just concerned that consensus and process was being circumvented, and that would upset people. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. My interpretation of "delete" at Afd is the same as Ritchie333's: that "delete" means no page at all, no redirect, nothing. But in this case it does not seem to have been offered as a solution at all. Sandstein invoked BLP1E in the close, which specifically prescribes redirecting to an article related to the subject if the subject is not separately notable, and this is a case of that, so we should not object to the redirect on G4 grounds; declining and listing at Rfd was a thoughtful decision. As JamesBWatson has pointed out that people are likely to search for her here, and NinjaRobotPirate has identified some other Victoria Taylors mentioned in articles here, a redirect fails WP:XY, and a disambiguation page is better than search results. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, it was 58.176 who identified other Victoria Taylors. Credit where credit's due, yo. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No disambiguation, which should be reserved for (mostly) blue links (notables). Good search term, and those readers who search for other non-notable VT's will be savvy enough to include other details in their search fields. Presently, to search for just VT on a search engine other than Wikipedia's takes readers to pages of Reddit-associated VT. – Paine  15:56, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Victoria Taylor gain a very significant amount of notability more than any other Victoria Taylor currently. The redirect leads to a section of reddit that covers her role there as well as her role in the veritable shut down of reddit after her firing. 87.231.139.167 (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per WP:RECENTISM. Clearly, there aren't any notable "Victoria Taylors" so a dab of WP:DABMENTIONs is the best solution. -- Tavix (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — Page creator here. I was the nominator of the first AfD and !voted for deletion in the second. My thoughts generally echo what Sandstein and JamesBWatson have already said. A fundamental difference I'd like to point out is that redirecting as an alternative to deletion preserves the article in the page history, whereas in this scenario, the article and its history was not preserved—it was deleted. The primary point of discussion at AfD was whether the subject, Victoria Taylor, was suitable for an article. The consensus was that the subject was not suitable, and for that reason, the existing article and its history should be deleted. Had I recreated the article full-out, I would certainly have went against the consensus of the AfD. Had I recreated the article with the same content as what was deleted, it would have qualified for speedy deletion per G4. But a redirect aligns with the consensus that the subject is not suitable for an article. With all this in mind, I believe this discussion should proceed as if no article had existed prior—focusing primarily on the merits of the redirect and whether it is suitable per WP:REDIRECT. Mz7 (talk) 23:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above. Reddit = WP:RECENTISM. Not very closely related but Category:Redditors was recently deleted.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:26, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This idea that her name should lead to a disambiguation page doesn't make sense. She gained very significant worldwide notoriety as a result of her firing leading to the near complete shutdown of reddit by the volunteer moderators who run its forums. She is still very notable despite a bit of time having passed since those turn of events. Just yesterday AdWeek published this article entitled, "Victoria Taylor Reflects on Her Time at Reddit and Life at the Center of a Media Maelstrom". No other Victoria Taylor has that same significant level of coverage. In fact Victoria Taylor really should have a proper article about her given her notability. 90.44.74.155 (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation is a bit different. If the subject in question is notable specifically for being fired at reddit, and that firing was particularly notable, a Firing of Victoria Taylor at Reddit or an article along those lines might be appropriate. The subject doesn't inherit notability because the company is notable, or a specific instance there necessarily. WP:NOTEBLP is the guideline, and I just don't think the subject meets the requirement for a standalone article it at this time. Maybe they will in the future. You seem to feel differently, and perhaps I'm even incorrect.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:51, 2 August 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.

Airbus a380 emergency landing[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) 14:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not the only case, and we don't need an entire list of small incidents. - TheChampionMan1234 05:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both - actually it is the only case with this aircraft. At least the only one notable enough to write about. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
actually no, see [3] - TheChampionMan1234 22:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I guess you're right, then. I don't think we'll write about the second incident, but delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Also, don't fly on A380s for a while. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lol, why are you saying that, I flew on one for the first time, a few months ago, and all went smoothly, I felt like that I never wanted to fly on any Boeing aircraft again. - TheChampionMan1234 23:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since emergency landings are generally (in the general case) not notable; or retarget to A380 accidents and incidents section, which list notable occurrances (and not keep pointing at a single case, since it's a very generic title, so should indicate the list of events)-- 67.70.32.190 (talk)
  • Delete: should not redirect to a particular event from a general title such as this. Rubbish computer 09:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - regardless of the other issues, its ambiguous to other emergency landing by this type of plane. It is doesn't specify a date and location or flight number.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 04:01, 2 August 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.

Crucal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 3#Crucal

Verre[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 5#Verre

Calumite[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) 14:27, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not mentioned in the target article. My searches on other search engines find this term to be a brand name. Also, this redirect was formerly an article that seemed to he redirected due to reading like a promotion. Steel1943 (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it seems to be a calcium-alumino-silicate mineral used in the production of glass, as a substitute for alumina, obtained from the waste byproduct slag of the iron industry -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 06:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears to be WP:PROMOTIONAL [4] and ®.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:14, 2 August 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_July_25&oldid=1067814503"