Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 7, 2015.

XHFJ-FM[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 16#XHFJ-FM

Untitled Adam Sandler/Drew Barrymore Project[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) 14:01, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated redirect, this "project" now has a title. Tavix | Talk  21:11, 7 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.

Martin Smith (rapist)[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 deleted G10 by PhilKnight. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  20:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (activist) was moved to this title twice. Both times it was reverted as vandalism/BLP Violation. Apparently on the most recent time, the redirect from the move was left in place, so this should be deleted as a BLP violation. CrowCaw 19:59, 7 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.

GWR(Great Western Railway)[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) 13:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GWR should link to Great Western Railway (19th C. creation)- not to First Great Western (modern creation). Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 18:34, 7 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.

Washington, D.C. mayoral election, 2018[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. Just Chilling (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and because it's not discussed at the target article. BDD (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Someone searching for this is is going to be disappointed when they realize that there isn't any information at the target on this subject. Tavix | Talk  15:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too far in advance and therefore a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. I mentioned this already for 2017 in another RfD today and 2018 is even worse. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:26, 14 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.

Guantanamo detainees missing from the official list[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, default to keep. Deryck C. 10:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The target article says there is no official list, though it's a bit murky on that point. This used to be an article which was taken to AfD in April 2008 and closed as merge, but a few months later, it was simply redirected. Since there's no such list, and such the actual list doesn't signify who is or is not on the "official list", these should be deleted. --BDD (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As the nominator says, this misrepresents the status of detainees in a way that also misrepresents the facility in which they're being held. It violates the neutrality policy. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --
  1. Since when did we start deleting redirects, that were formerly articles, when there was a significant revision history? Those revision histories are essential to comply with the wikipedia's obligation to honor contributor's right to attribution when material was merged from one article to another.
  2. Nominator @BDD: says "The target article says there is no official list.". Well, if the target article does say this, it would be incorrect. A first official list was published on April 20, 2006, and a more complete official list on May 15, 2006. That would make the proper response to fix the article, not to delete redirects.

    A look at the target article's talk page -- Talk:List of Guantanamo Bay detainees -- shows that I have made proposals on how to bring the List of Guantanamo Bay detainees article up to date, every few years, my first detailed suggestion dates back to April 18, 2007 -- 363 days after the first official list was published.

    The reason why I didn't just go ahead and rewrite the article is that I didn't want my many challengers to accuse me of lapsing from WP:OWN. It is a controversial topic, and I didn't want to make the vast changes required without getting feedback from the rest of the community. It has been almost a decade, and I have received almost zero comments on my suggested changes. Geo Swan (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"When material was merged". That's a pretty important phrase here. There's no indication that such a merge took place. The history of the first redirect, where the article formerly was. It was PRODded in July 2008, and you redirected it a few hours later. Looking at the history of the target article, there were no edits until a few days later. Again, there's no indication that an actual merge took place. When did we start deleting redirects with significant revision history? As long as we've had redirects with significant revision history.
According to the target article, there's a list the AP considers official that the Pentagon says is not. If you're correct, this is indeed a major error that needs to be fixed. It's clear you have strong feelings about this issue, but we need facts. Surely you can't contest my argument that this redirect would disappoint or mislead readers, since the target article doesn't distinguish between detainees who were or were not on a purportedly official list. --BDD (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help me out. You wrote, above, that your nomination was partly based on a passage from "...the target article, [that says] there's a list the AP considers official that the Pentagon says is not." Which passage are you referring to -- because this is obviously incorrect. Geo Swan (talk) 21:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - given this was closed as merged, there'd need to be proof positive no content was ever merged anywhere before deletion could even be considered. On top of that, that an article existed there is a good indicator it's a likely search term, and so a redirect is probably a good idea. WilyD 08:29, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WilyD, I know you don't often respond to comments, but I'd really like to have this conversation with you. You frequently seem to decide something is a likely search term and then go no further—i.e., if it's something someone would search for, it must exist as a redirect. But what about cases like these, where it's fairly clear we're not delivering what a reader is searching for? This can't be good for the project. --BDD (talk) 13:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware that I respond to comments less than anyone else. The article notes that the American DOD released what it claims is a complete list, which does (slightly) address the topic, and some earlier releases of partial lists also took place, which again goes to the topic at hand. I would agree that if there was nothing, then how likely a search term is is irrelevant. But that's not the case here. A reader searches for prisoners missing from the official list, and we say "By the reliable sources, there aren't any anymore. Previously, there were some". Not perfect, perhaps, but not nothing (and a basis for them to do further research, since they now know about the earlier, partial lists and so on). And sometimes, if the term is malformed based on erroneous impressions, it's better and less confusing to send them to an article that clears up their confusion, rather than leave them in the dark. Like, List of people who have walked on Mars should send them to Human mission to Mars, even though it doesn't actually have what they're looking for, because it has what they should've been looking for if they weren't confused to start with. WilyD 09:47, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize there was a merge, and that was my mistake. My concern is that the existence of an "official list" seems to be disputed. And, with respect, you seem to have an axe to grind on this topic. Perhaps an RfC is called for. Even if there's consensus that we can call any given list official, it's not clear to me that we'd want to specify for every detainee whether or not they were on that list. And unless we get to that point, the redirect is misleading. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is in dispute, why can I point to the wikisource copy of it? Geo Swan (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OARDEC. "List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006" (PDF). United States Department of Defense. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2007-09-30. Retrieved 2006-05-15. Works related to List of Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba from January 2002 through May 15, 2006 at Wikisource
I'm a bit confused. The sources sound clear enough. You clearly keep a close eye on these articles. Yet the main article says that this is still in dispute. Something's not adding up. There must be editors challenging you on this, right? Also, the list just goes through May 2006, so presumably anyone detained after that point would also be "missing from the official list". --BDD (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valid search terms and a perfectly valid pair of redirects for them. Dragonfire X (talk) 00:27, 14 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_7&oldid=1142587163"