Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 13, 2016.

The SpaceX private launch site[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 25#The SpaceX private launch site

Pablo Picasso/African[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. JohnCD (talk) 08:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unlikely search term. There is no page history. 103.6.159.75 (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not a {{R from old history}} since this was created after subpages were shutdown in mainspace. Can't see how someone would search in this fashion and none of Picasso's other periods have similar redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, "subpages were shutdown in mainspace"? Is that some policy thing or a technical thing in the MediaWiki software now? I am unaware of it. Si Trew (talk) 06:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a little of both, but has been in effect since 2004. See Wikipedia:Subpages#History of subpages for more details. -- Tavix (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attribution/merge history to preserve. No potential use as search term. czar 06:11, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a helpful redirect. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2016 (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.

Ursula (Spider-Man)[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. 17:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Ditkovich is a minor character in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man trilogy. There is no mention of this character in the target article, and there is no standalone list of Spider-Man film characters she could be added to. Reach Out to the Truth 13:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there is List of Spider-Man supporting characters, but she's not on there either, and you did say specifically film characters. Si Trew (talk) 06:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
María Fernanda Morales looks like an absolute hoax. It lists many roles, including this one, actually performed by someone else—and bizarrely, credits them too! As a BLP, with the only source IMDB, which doesn't even support most of those claims, I'm tagging for speedy. --BDD (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Ah, strike that. Presumably she just voices those characters in the Spanish dubs. Still, in dire need of refimprovement. --BDD (talk) 13:57, 25 April 2016 (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 Luther King Jr. International Airport[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. JohnCD (talk) 08:16, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article, created by blocked sockpuppet. SSTflyer 12:51, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly WP:G3 vandalism. No evidence to support this redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:RFD#D5 nonsense. Heathrow Airport says "the man convicted of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., was captured and arrested at Heathrow Airport" but that seems an unlikely target, one would have to imagine someone typing in this to answer a question something like "which airport was MLK's assasin arrested at?", and it would probably be better to let them find that out from search. I am surprised there isn't a Martin Luther King (jr.) Airport but it seems not. Si Trew (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. There is not an airport named for Dr. King, certainly not this one. Speedy declined. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Atlanta airport isn't named after Martin Luther King Jr., nor was it ever named for him. There is no basis for this redirect. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:54, 17 April 2016 (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.

Susan B. Anthony International Airport[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 as WP:G5 by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs). (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in article, created by blocked sockpuppet. SSTflyer 12:50, 13 April 2016 (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.

Fauxcahontas[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. Weighing up the debate below, the general conclusion is that WP:BLP requires us to err on the side of caution and require a high threshold of coverage in reliable sources in order to keep derogatory redirects to biographies. Deryck C. 17:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Although some reliable sources have used "Fauxcahontas", it is not used in any Wikipedia article (excluding redirect). WP:BLP doesn't explicitly comment redirects, but first paragraph of WP:BLPCAT is probably applicable to this case.

WP:RNEUTRAL isn't too helpful guideline for us here since it doesn't comment on the BLP burden that pejorative redirect titles dump on BLPs. Difference between this case and e.g. Dirty Desmond is that "Dirty Desmond" moniker is well established and properly sourced in the article.

See also: Lyin' Ted, Little Marco and Rubiobot. Politrukki (talk) 11:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Never heard of this one, and its returning fewer than 10% of the Ghits that Lyin' Ted and Little Marco do. --BDD (talk) 14:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine target to Elizabeth Warren#Native American heritage controversy. It is a well known alternate name for that documented controversy. I share the BLP concern but the proper thing to do is to correct it, not delete it, per WP:PRESERVE. I'm not entirely sure how we should do that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not actually a section or anchor at the moment (just a semicolon heading), but that is easily fixed. I guess we need to add some info at the target. Nothing in BLP says that they have to be hagiographies with no "negative" aspects, they can be provided there are reliable sources. I wouldn't be knowledgeable enough sensibly to do so, I think. If not, we should delete it just as WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not at target; which is entirely separate from any BLP issue. Si Trew (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't test my link, but yeah it's easily fixed. I think this is allowed under WP:RNEUTRAL, it is a name that reliable sources have used for the controversy, just like Climategate or Attorneygate. I guess the difference is that this is a denigrating moniker for a person, not the controversy itself, but we normally keep those too if they're in reliable sources. I don't think we really need to modify the target either, other than adding an anchor, I think most readers will be able to figure out how "fauxcahontas" came about by what's already written there. We don't need to hit them in the head with it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think we do need to hit them in the head with it. Otherwise it's just WP:NEOLOGISM. Si Trew (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so really, "Attorneygate" does not appear in Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy. I suppose it comes down to editorial discretion, and that should be settled on the article's talk page. As a redirect, it points to the correct location. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does, because if the term existed at the target then there would be little to argue about (or at least its inclusion would be contested at the article page and not here). I haven't waded through the article history to discover whether it ever existed at the target; I'm basing my delete !vote on a rather gung-ho attitude that if it's useful someone will recreate it, and at that time they will need to add a good RS or two to the target. So let's assume there were some content and it has been deleted, then the redirect should have been dropped to as a dangling pointer. But if the content was never present, then this was a purely speculative creation and can be speedily deleted as WP:R3 (or is it R2?) novel or obscure term. Either way, it can't stand up to scrutiny unless it's at the article. Wikipedia is not a cryptic crossword puzzle, we shouldn't require people to make French mental leaps (leapfrog?), but tell them straight. Si Trew (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But the content is there. The description of the entire controversy is right there in the section, in fairly decent detail. It just so happens that some sources have used this non-neutral name to refer to it, and as such people are somewhat likely to search for it by that title. It's unlikely we would write an entire separate article about this. I'm wary of including any detail about political opponents' deliberately insulting soundbites for things in the bodies of articles which are supposed to be neutral, but that's a long way off from pretending that they don't exist and that readers aren't going to search for them. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 17:30, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no evidence that it exists. I don't work for Minitrue but there has to be some boundary and to me, having the term in the article is a decent boundary. The first result I get from Google is from the National Review but totally stalled my Computer when accessing it and popped up with something asking for a donation. There's an op-ed here at The New York Post which is presumably RS, but the first one is better because it specifically has Native American in the headline (I think, it buggered my computer up). Wiktionary doesn't have it, but I don't know its rules for entries. Most of the sources I find are not reliable, but yours may differ. Si Trew (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There was a long spate of edits around the end of February 2015 by User:Steeletrap on this section (and others), that user may be able to shed some light on the matter. As far as I can tell, this term was never in the article before, during or after those edits, but I may have missed something. The redirect itself was created on 15 July 2014, so well predates that edit session. Si Trew (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Elizabeth Warren#Native American heritage controversy more or less along the above lines. Just because it's pejorative doesn't mean people aren't going to search for it. From what I can see the article gives a dispassionate, neutral description of this flash-in-the-pan controversy, so if we're going to document it at all we should link to it by a name used by her opponents. Mangoe (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's actually a refine to section, but I read the whole article, and nowhere in the article does it say "Fauxcahontas". That is veering on WP:MADEUP. Were it mentioned, even without a source, I would think otherwise, but it is not a term used in any source that I could find, reliable or otherwise. It is not used in the sources I gave above, except as Headline language. Si Trew (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until or unless the moniker gets cited in the article. WP:BLP is very strict about requiring high-quality, in-line sources when discussing non-neutral material. -- Tavix (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As all three similar redirects listed by the nominator as see-alsos have been deleted, it would be very unusual if this one didn't follow. --BDD (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2016 (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.

Rubiobot[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP: All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Although some reliable sources have used "Rubiobot", it is not used in any Wikipedia article (excluding redirect). WP:BLP doesn't explicitly comment redirects, but first paragraph of WP:BLPCAT is probably applicable to this case.

WP:RNEUTRAL isn't too helpful guideline for us here since it doesn't comment on the BLP burden that pejorative redirect titles dump on BLPs. Difference between this case and e.g. Dirty Desmond is that "Dirty Desmond" moniker is well established and properly sourced in the article.

See also: Lyin' Ted, Little Marco and Fauxcahontas. Politrukki (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Rubiobot is known is reliable sources, is easier to type than the full name which helps a great many readers, and it may be used in articles later down the line. The 321 kiddo (talk) 04:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Redirects do not have to be neutral; WP:RNEUTRAL. However if the information is not at the target then it's WP:RFD#D2 confusing, so delete it. I'm happy to change my !vote if information is added, but I'm not competent to do so myself, since the coverage with this name in my part of the world is minimal if not nonexistent and I'm in no place to judge how common it is in the US. Si Trew (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. It is sourced and the redirect may help confused people. Bod (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. Doesn't this refer to his performance at Eighth Republican Party presidential debate, February 2016 in Goffstown, New Hampshire? (what a mouthful!) If so, by far the most common "nickname" I've seen from that was Marco Roboto, not this. -- Tavix (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. SSTflyer 04:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not common enough. Rubio's performance in the debate Tavix cites was indeed called robotic, but the point was made in different ways with different epithets. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's one thing to state that Rubio happened to "sound like a robot" or however one wants to phrase things. "Rubiobot" is a flash-in-the-pan neologism without legs and as time has passed looks incredibly unlikely to become a lasting nickname of the likes of "Tricky Dick" et al. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2016 (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.

Current leaders of San Jose, California[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) 18:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirects since the word "leader" is ambiguous. (Dies it refer to political leaders, motivational leaders, leaders of movements, etc?) Steel1943 (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as we avoid relative time, and per Steel1943. —Anomalocaris (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While I really don't like the "current ..." articles, redirecting them to the article about the right topic prevents them from being endlessly recreated. I find no ambiguity in these redirects. The leaders of a political entity (in this case, the city) will of course be the political leaders. Rossami (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The word "political" is nowhere in these redirects. The redirects assume that the reader is not looking for any other sort of leader, which is misleading. Also, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Current leaders of Seattle for a similar discussion where deletion consensus was established. Steel1943 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again, "political" is implicit in the thing that they are the leader of. In common english usage, the leaders of a city/state/country/township/etc. are the political leaders. No one would use that phrase and expect to find a motivational speaker or even a religious leader. If you wanted that more generic list sorted by geography, the common english usage would be something like "prominent citizens of ...". I still do not see your argument that this is misleading. Rossami (talk) 06:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're redundant, but these will not really go out of date (assuming the article is kept reasonably current). I don't like redirects starting "Current" either but WP:RFD#K5, presumably somebody finds them useful. Leaders patently, in common English, means the people at the top of the organisation – be they elected or dictators, non-political or political, or indeed religious leaders in a theocracy. The only time it's likely to be at all ambiguous is for people such as constitutional monarchs or other figureheads with no real executive power, such as Queen Elizabeth II (is she the leader of Canada?) Si Trew (talk) 07:24, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No other type-in searches for "Current leaders" bring up such lists besides these three. Current Leaders is not a proper noun name for this leadership. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a rationale for (or against) deletion. But the weird caps do not a proper noun make; a proper noun is a proper noun because it is (a person, place, and so on), however you capitalise it. Personally I'd delete all three, but that's just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Si Trew (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except that "current leaders" is not a proper noun. There's no organization there that says hey I'm a member of Current Leaders. On the flip side there are plenty of articles that start with "Leaders of " and "List of members of " and "List of leaders of. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:29, 18 April 2016 (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.

IPhone 5SE[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. --BDD (talk) 18:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be retargeted to iPhone SE? sst✈ 05:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:XY. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 06:07, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with deletion. "iPhone 5SE" was a rumored name for the iPhone SE. sst✈ 08:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also disagree. After all, the SE is essentially an iteration of the 5S; I can imagine a handful of people typing "iPhone 5SE" instead of "iPhone SE". Philip Terry Graham 08:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to iPhone SE. It's a plausible mistake to make per above. -- Tavix (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to this redirect having an WP:XY issue, there are other issues. For one, the redirect is somewhat erroneous to a point where it could be misleading since Apple Inc. has a specific way they number their iPhone product, and this redirect could be thought to redirect to a phone in the "iPhone 5" series, which it doesn't, nor did the iPhone 5 series have an "SE" version; this redirect could make readers believe that the iPhone SE is part of the "iPhone 5" series when it is actually part of the "iPhone 6" series. (Speaking of which, I think I'll create IPhone 6SE now.) Also, this redirect reflects some of the criticism that some people have seem to have stated about the target that may not be encyclopedic: There is criticism that the target is an iPhone 5S case with iPhone 6S series hardware. Lastly, this could potentially be an erroneous title for the iPhone 5S anyways since a reader could think the redirect means "iPhone 5 Special Edition". For these reasons, it would be best to delete this redirect as erroneous, misleading and ambiguous. Steel1943 (talk) 00:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I already commented above, but to add: I believe that besides my own opinion, the confusion presented by the nominator regarding where the redirect should be targeted in itself is the equivalent of rationale for this redirect's deletion. This redirect could be an erroneous name for multiple subjects. Steel1943 (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 09:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as plausible mistake. — JFG talk 08:11, 14 April 2016 (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.

Iexplorer.exe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 April 21#Iexplorer.exe

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_13&oldid=1088110408"