Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 19[edit]

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

2000.06[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 28#2000.06

Jessica Collins (I)[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. Deryck C. 13:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense way of disambiguating. Delete per WP:RFD#D5. -- Tavix (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Tavix. Just because their names are similar and Jessie Collins was born about twelve years after Jessica Collins doesn't mean they're related in any way. Like WP:RFD#D5 says, it wouldn't make any sense to redirect Jessica Collins (I) to Jessica Collins or Jessica Collins (II) to Jessie Collins, just like it wouldn't make any sense to redirect Apple to Orange or vice versa. SONIC678|Let’s hang out here 21:11, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nonsensical redirects. Resolute 22:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment they're not exactly nonsense, this is the way the two are named on IMDB. -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete can cause confusion. When I first saw this entry I thought the person has different valence --Lenticel (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unencyclopedic disambiguation method, notwithstanding how the good people at IMDB do things. Ivanvector (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We don't name people the odd way they do at IMDb. Nate • (chatter) 04:00, 23 June 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.

Compassionate Zionism and Albert Einstein[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. Deryck C. 10:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another essay that should have been deleted instead of redirected. The Albert Einstein article discusses that he assisted Zionist causes, but doesn't say anything about "Compassionate Zionism" (a term that I believe to be either made up or a WP:NEOLOGISM). -- Tavix (talk) 16:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete an assertion of an opinion, rather than an encyclopedic tone/wording of a proper redirect. He may have sympathized with Zionism, but using the term "Compassionate Zionism" isn't the way to go. Even though redirects are cheap, they should still be kept reasonable.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 20:32, 19 June 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.

Adam's wine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 28#Adam's wine

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/9 August 2010[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. Deryck C. 10:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect, it is the only CFD daily log page that has this format of associated redirect page. Liz Read! Talk! 11:27, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that. Can certainly be deleted now. Ivanvector (talk) 15:31, 23 June 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.

Anita Padilla[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 restore as article and WP:PROD, with prejudice against converting back to a redirect to WFLD. Deryck C. 21:00, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rational given for creating the redirect back in 2010 was "article is sloppy and self-contradictory, I doubt it would survive AFD, anyway". Redirect was made to the TV station where this reporter was working at the time, yet there is only a single cursory mention of her in the WFLD#Notable current on-air staff and it's not clear whether she even still works there. If the article went to AfD and consensus was to delete, then there would've been no need for the redirect. If consensus was the article should have been kept, then again there would've been no need for redirect. Seems as if the redirect was used to essentially "delete" the article without going through the AfD process. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Wow, I barely remember doing anything with this article. I think the only reason I found it was by browsing a list of unsourced BLPs. I didn't see where I was going to find the independent sources necessary, and the article was in terrible shape, so I figured I'd just make it a redirect. If someone else thought the article had a chance, they could have reversed the redirect, so I didn't think I was doing anything too radical. At this point, I don't have any strong opinions, but Padilla does still work for WFLD/Fox 32 (some recent stuff here), so I don't think a redirect really hurts anything. What is the outcome you hope to see? Zagalejo^^^ 04:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the article is so bad that deletion will be uncontroversial, then perhaps WP:BLPPROD is more applicable than a full-fledged AfD. Otherwise, it probably should at least go through the process, shouldn't it? The redirect simply links to a page where her name is only mentioned once, almost in passing, and there is nothing else written about her at all. So, I'm not sure how such a redirect has any real value per No. 10 of WP:R#DELETE. If at least one independent reliable source cannot be found to support her mention on WFLD, then there's a chance that said mention could be someday removed by someone per WP:UNSOURCED or something similar. If that happens, then the redirect will sort of be shooting blanks, won't it? I don't mean to seem overly critical or condescending. I've just never seen a redirect like this before and am curious if it's OK. Maybe at the very least the target "article" should be the specific section of WFLD where her name is mentioned, if something like that is acceptable. - Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used to see redirects like this all the time. Back in the day, people would say "redirects are cheap". A redirect at least takes readers to the page where Padilla is mentioned. But I'll admit that she may not work for the same station forever, so at some point, the redirect may just end up confusing people. If you want to delete it, go ahead. If you want to restore the article, and run it through BLPPROD or AFD, you can do that, too. Zagalejo^^^ 00:13, 20 June 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_June_19&oldid=1138580349"