Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 2, 2015.

Draft:Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation[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 no consensus between histmerge and keep, default to keep. Both histmerge and talk page notice + page history preservation are valid ways of preserving attribution. So with the page creator arguing for keep and no overwhelming consensus for change, the status quo stays. Deryck C. 09:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I'm not even sure that soft redirects fall within the remit of RfD. But here at RfD we're generally helpful at fixing other people's problems. Deryck C. 10:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from Draft to Article-space. Does not seem particularly useful to me, but does not quite appear to fit CSD categories. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Looks like this is a cut-and-paste move/merge by User:EoRdE6. In itself, that breaks the history, so to keep it for attribution is then mindblowing. Looking at its history, the comment on converting it to an R is that it was done to preserve history (User:Tavix, do you have a feeling of deja vu here?!Interrobang) Given that comment in the history, I am not sure we should delete it without consensus of the contributor, User:EoRdE6, who technically needs the attribution (or not, depending on our consensus): Since that user voluntarily put contributions into the main article out of draft, and drafts space is kinda what it says it is, you'd think it would be safe to delete it. Simplest way would be to get User:EoRdE6 to go WP:G7 author requests deletion, which is what I usually do with drafts when they get moved or content incorporated (usually DABs or stubs I make to get consensus here). It could go WP:G6 housekeeping but I am not sure that would succeed now it is at RfD. Si Trew (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep for attribution as stated. Look at the header of Talk:Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation for more. Basically a paid COI editor had created a draft on a talk page, so I moved it to the draft space. After advising them to clean it up, and they did, I merged it into the main article and left an attribution tag on the talk page and attribution in the edit summary as well, all of which is allowed. The "redirect" must be kept so that the bo on Talk:Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation has a working link non-admin's can review the actual attribution for the content. Also, to the original nominators comment "Redirect from Draft to Article-space. Does not seem particularly useful to me" You do realise that all accepted drafts leave a redirect and consensus is to leave them alone to avoid breaking links... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 06:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @TexasAndroid and SimonTrew: EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 07:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @EoRdE6: thanks for explaining that, it helps a lot. I am not sure Draft space is the right place to leave it for the history, and we have had several discussions about that recently, and I think consensus is changing on this: if the original contributor is attributed on the page in mainspace, there's no need to keep the draft. But if not, perhaps it would be better to move it to a subpage such as Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation/Paid contributions or something. But Tavix' argument, of a couple of days ago, and I don't want to put words in Tavix' mouth, is that keeping history in that way as some form of legalistic wrangling is pointless since it's almost impossible to find. Obviously none of us wants to fall foul of copyright law and so on, but I think consensus is changing when it comes to redirects. We are not discussing the content of the article, but whether a redirect should exist or not. That is entirely separate from attributing content, in my view (for if not, nobody would ever be allowed to edit anything. Why can anyone request a page move? If the redirect is a virgin, you don't even need to be an admin to deflower it.) Si Trew (talk) 07:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @SimonTrew: "is pointless since it's almost impossible to find" Points yet again at the box on Talk:Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. Right under the wikiproject boxes? EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 07:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, and that is a fine thing to do and I thank you for it – most people don't do that. But the argument is not about whether it should be attributed, but where it should be attributed, and Draft space was created for a reason: er, for drafts. Not for things that stay permanent like this. You can change the box when we move it. All we have to decide is where to move it. For that matter, if the paid author is attributed in the merged text, it don't need attribution in the draft, already has attribution. as it is we have a WP:CNR which we generally discourage, and moreover one from a namespace that is intended to be used as a scratchpad, not as a permanent store (before we had it, we tended to do it in User: space, and some still do.) The problem comes partly because you have incorporated another editor's text into the mainspace article, no doubt with their permission, whereas that editor should have done so. Then the attribution would be clearer. Si Trew (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • In any case, this discussion in itself serves the purpose of attribution. And we keep a permanent log. So, retarget it here, then! (Only half silly: we do have {{Old RfD}} which we can add to the talk page at the main article, too.)˘Si Trew (talk) 07:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to clarify my remarks from that other conversation. The "almost impossible to find" comment was applicable to the Qantas Flight Numbers conversation because there was a proposal on the table to rename that redirect to Qantas airline. Let's pretend this move happens. Now all of the history from the Flight Numbers redirect is at "Qantas airline". Unless someone knows that this move happened (or knows about the RFD), it becomes a lot harder to find this history and you have the secondary consequence of having the history not match the current title of the redirect. Now that I think about it again, however, I think that entire problem can be mitigated by a talk page note so I'd take that comment with a grain of salt. (My opinions on this topic are still evolving, but I think I'm finally figuring it out!) Tavix | Talk  15:26, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • History merge the draft to Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation. It's a good candidate to do so because this happened in March 2015 and there wasn't any intervening edits at the other page. Also, the draft "lines up" (for a lack of a better word) with the final edit, so we *shouldn't* have any goofy history that doesn't make sense once it's moved. That way, the history is saved, everyone's edits are attributed for, and we don't have any WP:CNR problems. Tavix | Talk  14:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC) (edited 15:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
  • As an aside, I'd recommend everyone participating in this discussion read and understand WP:MAD. I took the time to do so over the last couple days, and I'm really glad I did. There are a lot of different ways we can handle problematic redirects—anywhere from history merging to renaming the redirect to copying the history to the talk page, etc. Every situation is different so I'd like everyone to weigh all the solutions on that page and not just something that we've done in the past. Obviously keeping it how it is is also a solution, but you should weigh whether keeping it is worth having the WP:CNR and whether you think it is better than all the other WP:MAD solutions. Tavix | Talk  15:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good aside, I only really looked at it briefly on some particular point. But I think it is kinda deliberately without looking at it now, a question of outlook (you may have noticed I deliberately wrote "paid author" every time): Do you want to be attributed because it looks good on your CV or do you want to attribute because you are a volunteer trying to be a Wikipedian making knowledge available to all? I have God knows how many edits, in the ten thousands at least, partly cos I am always making typos and mistakes and have to go and fix them immediately afterwards (and I know where the Preview button is). I use my real name. I like RfD because we get the gamut of stacks of different stuff, and every now and again I can make an article or do a translation or do something to make it better. I'm a wikignome, in short. But the backwaters are where one finds the best trout. Si Trew (talk) 15:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • History merge per Tavix. That makes perfect sense. For some reason I assumed it was not possible and so ended up on our laps instead. If it can be, it should be. Si Trew (talk) 15:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • History merge per Tavix and speedy close as obvious. Source was a draft of the target which was cut-and-pasted to mainspace, which is not the correct method, but the fix is easy. This doesn't need 7 days. Ivanvector (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just plain keep. I really don't see the problem here. Draft space is new enough that I don't think we have a standard procedure as to whether to keep or delete old redirects from published drafts, but they're kept frequently enough, this one is also an {{R from merge}}, and it's referred to on the target page's talk page. There wouldn't really be anything wrong with histmerging here, but it's not really needed either. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 9 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.

Loi Huriet Sérusclat[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 move Draft:Loi relative à la protection des personnes dans la recherche biomédicale over redirect. --BDD (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-language soft redirects are generally considered to not be useful. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've translated the French article for Franck Sérusclat: I meant to create this in draft space, but I cocked it up so it is in main space and I see no good in moving it into draft. Deliberately I have not done the {{R from title without diacritics}} and other gnoming like that, since if consensus here is to delete it that just is more work for all of us. I created it really as a strawman to see if others thought that was worth keeping, and we could perhaps redirect it there, since it's mentioned thereStruck bySi Trew (talk) 08:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC). But unfortunately the original has no references. I offer it up for your consideration, but I don't mind if you say no and the draftit gets deleted. I've done the {{translated page}} etc on its talk page, but I am not sure how useful this is to an English-speaking audience, or rather, those in common law jurisdictions. Si Trew (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, {{Infobox legislation}} suggests that the short-name, i.e. that of the redirect, preferably should be the same as the article title. Which it will be if we move this draft over the redirect. i.e. the title as it stands (in mainspace) is better than the full title long-name in the template). Si Trew (talk) 08:12, 4 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.

Wilhelm Strienz[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) 13:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-language soft redirects are generally considered to not be useful. TexasAndroid (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, and your observation is appreciated, TexasAndroid. Strienz possibly should have an article in the English Wikipedia. Isn't he the singer of "Gute Nacht, meine Mutter, gute Nacht!" in Schindler's List? Rammer (talk) 22:10, 2 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.

Organs[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 WP:SNOWBALL retarget to Organ as {{R from plural}} (non-admin closure) Si Trew (talk) 05:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

where should this go?

  • Retarget to organ. Plurals almost always should go to singulars, unless the plural has its own meaning (it should be a separate page) or unless the singular's a disambiguation page and only one major use of the term gets used in the plural. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to organ per Nyttend --Lenticel (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to organ as {{R from plural}} -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 04:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was hasty of me, quite a few things linked to it, mostly bio articles but a few about music. I am going through them fixing them. In one sense we should have kept it as being used, but at least three so far were wrong or could be refined, so it's useful to go through them and fix them. About half way now, just updating this so you don't think anything's afoot. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eight now that, at least, needed to go to Organ (music). That would have been a WP:SURPRISE. Still going, not far now. Si Trew (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly there, 13 to go. Four more were incorrectly redirecting when they meant a musical organ, so some good as come of it. Si Trew (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Three more in the last tranche, now I have only three in user facing space (the others are in User:Talk and can stay, their fault). I am not sure where those three come from cos not in the article itself, presumably transcluded by an infobox, I hunt it down after a fag break. Si Trew (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done (was done ages ago but took a nap). There are two left in mainspace, but the link isn't in the article, so must be transcluded somehow, and haven't pinned those down yet. Si Trew (talk) 15:31, 3 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.

Roads in Autostrada of Italy[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 10#Roads in Autostrada of Italy

Future Pittsburgh AFL 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 delete. --BDD (talk) 13:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are so outdated that this team is actually defunct now. Delete per WP:RFD#D2: confusing. Tavix | Talk  17:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clue is in the title. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Si Trew (talk) 21:25, 2 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.

Jokeware[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 refine to Malware#Grayware. Deryck C. 09:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding little evidence that Jokeware is a thing. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I read about the term somewhere, and I'm sure there was mention of it in the malware article at some point. But I won't lose any sleep over the outcome of this. This is Paul (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's a fake screen thing that's a "joke" so not destructive, but if you have a fake login screen that BSODs, you might do something destructive to your own system to "fix" the error. And various other types of these "jokes" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term is used outside Wikipedia, so it is not completely made up. See this forum discussion from 2007: "I want to make a program that jokes around with unsuspecting users and looks like a malicious program. Not a normal malware program that does actual harm, just like a proof-of-concept/"look at what I made!" bragging rights kind of thing. And no, I am not going to shove this into any of my programs or anything (as it is, I might edit it so its less badware and more jokeware)." Not certain if the term is known enough to mention in article, however. Dimadick (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: "Joke programs" are mentioned (only) in the #Grayware section of the target article. Is this enough to keep, or is the redirect more likely to mislead or disappoint readers?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine as {{R to section}} per BDD, to Malware#Grayware. (Should be Greyware, as any fule kno, damn that Noah Webster). That makes sense and I can't see why it should be deleted. I did have a good cast around where this was first listed, but couldn't find any better, so for once I shut up. But that seems sensible. Not perfect, but better. Si Trew (talk) 09:17, 3 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.

Hindustan Murdabad[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, without prejudice against future creation of an article or redirect to article which specifically discusses this phrase. Deryck C. 09:24, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Term Hindustan Murdabad is not as commonly used as Pakistan Murdabad. It is an attack redirect. Hindustan is not even official name of India. Official names of India are "India" and "Bharat". As redirect history says creator said that "I'm creating this redirect as Pakistan Murdabad" redirect exists." So it is clear case of "tit for tat" and "revenge". Human3015 Say Hey!! • 06:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Variations of Pakistan's official motto in the form of Pakistan/Hindustan/Khalistan/Someotherstan + jindabad/zindabad/murdabad seem to be very commonly used by English speakers who originate in the region, and it seems very likely that an English speaker from outside the region might want to look up these terms on Wikipedia. The motto of Pakistan is most common in itself, and we have an article about it; otherwise I don't see that one or the other variation is slightly less common and don't think it would be a good reason to delete only some variations if true. Quite frankly, it might be best to have a section on these coinages in the Pakistan Zindabad article, and redirect all these terms there. That would be superior to the current situation, but, again, I see no reason to delete this. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Murdabad as a term means "down with" and "death to". This term is not used, nor translated in the target article. Is this really a common term in Anti-Indian sentiment, notable enough for a mention? Hindustan has its own article, which also does not used the phrase. Dimadick (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a common Urdu slogan [1] and about as notable as Death to America which redirects to anti-American or Death to Israel which redirects to anti-Zionism. It's obviously not obsolete, otherwise it wouldn't have usage. Mar4d (talk) 19:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Death to America is its own article. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I urge editors to respond to Dimadick's comments. This is likely to cause confusion if not explained in the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Many reasons. First, the term isn't used in the target article so a redirect is out of place. Second, it doesn't even make sense in the target article.The equivalence with Death to Israel is gratuitous (people yelling that phrase really want Israel to go away) and with Death to America is dubious (that is a well documented phrase that represents anti-Americanism and even has an article of its own). Finally, the mere existence of Pakistan Zindabad or Pakistan Murdabad (the latter is also, imo, deletable), doesn't mean that we need parallel or opposite sentiment articles on everything. What's next? Bangladesh Murdabad? --regentspark (comment) 13:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of disparaging nicknames for settlements, and add it there. We created this a few months ago for this exact kind of thingpurpose. Even User:BDD bunged in on its talk page. It can be added there and maybe retarget thence? Si Trew (talk) 16:46, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly disparaging, but it's not a nickname, for a settlement or otherwise. --BDD (talk) 00:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was never happy with the name of this list, but we had some argy bargy about it if I recall. It was moved on 15 February by User:Mdann52, without any consensus that I can see at its talk page. The final edit, of 19 February 2015, was (mirabile dictu) at List of disparaging place names by User:BDD (where have I heard that name before?!) as a typo correction. I see your point, "nickname" is inappropriate, but I have never liked that title for the list article, and I think what we had was better. If we moved it back, do you think it would then fit in? Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "Settlement", to me, is just far too vague, and a bit of a catch-all. I realise it has long-established consensus, though, for example in {{Infobox settlement}}, but it is just a bit of Wikipedia slang really, nobody in real life ever calls a town, village, city or anything a "settlement". Si Trew (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I share some of your reservations about the name that page ended up at, but this term just doesn't fit there. No matter how much a person hates India, if they're going there, they're not going to say, "Ugh, I've got to pop on over to Hindustan Murdabad." Similarly, "Death to America" isn't a nickname for America. It's just a disparaging slogan about it. --BDD (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, then. I see your point. They might pop over, or avoid, Murdabad but not specifically Hindustan Murdabad (and I dunno but even if they did, wouldn't we have it as Murdabad, Hindustan? We don't have "England Gunchester", we manage just with "Gunchester"). Si Trew (talk) 07:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's not mentioned at the target article, so it won't be helping anyone. Maybe someone who already knows what it means will see where it redirects and smile, but that's a best case scenario. --BDD (talk) 13:36, 9 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.

Autostrade S.p.A.[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. Correct former full name of the company. Deryck C. 09:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia policy is not to use the corporate status of a company after its name, not in running text, not in article titles, and by osmosis not in redirects (otherwise that would be an easy workaround to avoid that policy). Despite trying, I can't find the particular policy but I know it exists. Nothing in reader-facing space links to it, stats are at bot noise level (4 hits last month), never been edited since its creation in 2009 by User:Baeksu [sic]. Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep It's true that WP:NCCORP discourages such suffixes in titles, but that hardly means they're unsuitable in redirects. Besides, there are extremely prominent exceptions, where corporate suffix is used as natural disambiguation, such as Apple Inc. and Target Corporation. This is the actual former name of the company, which was never primary topic for "Autostrade". --BDD (talk) 13:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you as far as listing it on the DAB page, but not farther, I still think the S.p.A. should go delete. Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment s.p.A. → S.A. (corporation), which is a French designation: that can't be right, surely? Kinda a cross-language redirect. On the other hand, S.P.A. → the DAB at SPA. Have can, will worms. Si Trew (talk) 15:39, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on your nomination for that one: S.p.A. is specifically mentioned there! --BDD (talk) 15:58, 3 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.

Jamie Jackson (actor)[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 Speedily deleted by User:Bgwhite.. (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 06:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no appropriate reason for this to redirect to a disambiguation page. This is better left as a redlink which indicates that an article needs to be created for the subject. It is deceptively misleading to redirect this to a disambiguation page. Dab pages are not articles, but are navigation tools to locate information about a subject. With this redirect, readers are mislead to think that the article exists. The editor EauZenCashHaveIt has been edit warring both over this redirect and the content of the disambiguation page. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Looking to clarify MOS:DABMENTION and Talk:James Jackson#Adding redlinks to disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 00:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a continuous discussion on a number of places for at least a couple of months. Several editors, like Willondon, conveyed that "encouragement to create articles" was needed back when the guideline was written, but that is no longer the case as there are far more articles on Wikipedia. There are also numerous amendments that suggest that redlinks do not belong on disambiguation pages to begin with, and that names should not be redlinked at all. Furthermore, there is an active draft that several editors, myself included, have been contributing to. There is nothing deceptive about a redirect to a page that actually says something about the actor (who is barely notable), rather than a redlink that deliberately points to nowhere. Bkonrad has been taking matters into his own hands, misusing his admin privileges to delete the redirect I created in order to appease everyone with the best temporary solution (I was initially against having Jackson anywhere because, as I mentioned earlier, he is non-notable) and to help Midas02 with the edit war that has gotten the best of us all. The redirect is far more helpful to the readers than a redlink. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 04:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've speedy deleted this. There should be no redirects to itself. Bgwhite (talk) 05:30, 2 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.

Meet Me in the Pale Moonlight[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) 13:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Completing RFD nomination for User:Littlecarmen who had previously nominated it at AfD. I don't have any opinion on whether this redirect is kept or deleted. The nominator's rationale is as follows:

The section this article redirects to doesn't exist anymore. The article doesn't mention unreleased songs anymore.

Pinging User:Another Believer and User:Crh23 who !voted on the AfD. Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect serves a purpose. People searching for the song name would benefit from being redirect to the article about the artist. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:RFD#D2 "may cause confusion", WP:RFD#D10 (WP:REDLINK). People searching for the song name do not benefit from winding up at an article that doesn't mention it, they benefit more from getting a redlink. Other Search Engines Exist if they want to find out who sung it; WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Si Trew (talk) 04:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems to be an unreleased song that the target doesn't mention. I was thinking of weak retargetting this to her Ultraviolence album since it was rumored that the song will appear there. However, said article doesn't have any info about this song as well. --Lenticel (talk) 22:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that would be WP:CRYSTAL, anyway. The thing is, I thought Meet me in the moonlight was a Jazz standard, I must have been singing it wrong all these years perhaps it was Feel me in the floodlights or something. No wonder I never get the girl. Si Trew (talk) 08:57, 3 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_2&oldid=1138580355"