Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 1, 2016.

Nested relational model[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) 16:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect points to a section of Database normalization that no longer exists, and "nested" does not occur anywhere on that page nowadays: I don't understand what's the connection between the nested relational model and database normalization. The nested relational model is a legitimate topic that would probably be worth a page on Wikipedia, but meanwhile I don't see how this redirect can be helpful now. a3nm (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I created this redirect in 2011, but have no strong opinion now on where it should go, other than agreeing that the old target no longer makes sense. The relevant information from Database normalization was lost in these edits by NemoNF in January 2015 that cut back the article to about half of its earlier size. Unfortunately, Nemo doesn't seem to still be active, so we can't ask for an opinion on where the relevant parts of the deleted material should go. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:34, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks David Eppstein for digging these edits out! Arguably it's a shame that this material was removed, it looks useful at first glance. Either way, I think the redirect should probably be removed for lack of a reasonable target. --a3nm (talk) 08:52, 3 September 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.

Plot to assassinate the president[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) 16:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect could go to any number of presidents of all types; seems to be an unintentional systemic bias issue. 331dot (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agree with the nominator. The author claimed that the topic appeared to be about our president (indicating a bias toward America). WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 03:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect seems to have been created solely to use the phrase in Geostorm, a two-year-old article about an upcoming movie. — Gorthian (talk) 20:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague since it can refer to both real life and fictional assassination plots --Lenticel (talk) 22:36, 4 September 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.

Trafficker[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 retarget to Smuggling. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect. One can traffic in any number of commodities; human trafficking is just one possible alternative. Also drug trafficking, etc. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you will (hell make an an new article for all I care) — God's Godzilla 22:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by God's Godzilla (talk • contribs)
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.

User:2601:183:4000:D57A:0:0:0:9063[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. It appears God's Godzilla attempted to do this anyway during the discussion, and as pointed out, the IP could also be associated with other users, logged in or not. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it appropriate to redirect an IP user page to a registered user's page? WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Depends since it was mainly my account, so I don't see a reason why not reclaiming what's mine... — God's Godzilla 22:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by God's Godzilla (talk • contribs)
  • But the fact that you've redirected 3 IPs suggests that your IP changes, and leaving it like this means you are sort of associating yourself with any edits made by the new owners of those IPs, good or bad... CrowCaw 22:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) @God's Godzilla: IP addresses are rarely statically allocated. Although you might have been assigned that IP address at some point, it is likely that it will be reassigned to another person/entity in the future. Also, for your own privacy, revealing your IP address is generally considered a bad idea. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True; so how to get my edits to my profile is the issue/problem...so? (What to do?) — God's Godzilla 22:10, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by God's Godzilla (talk • contribs)
  • Comment @God's Godzilla: The edits you've made while not logged in cannot be credited to you as a registered user. The short answer: only edit while logged in. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This needs to be thrown over to WP:MFD as to whether those IP logs are worth saving and what the talk pages should be now that they are not likely to be used. There aren't any redirects here we can discuss. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now relinquished the redirect title from the user page, so is everyone happy now — God's Godzilla 22:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by God's Godzilla (talk • contribs)
  • Delete since there is probably no way to prove that the IP address is a static IP address owned by the redirect's creator or even if the redirect's creator is the only user of the device that has been assigned this IP. In addition to that, even if this IP were a static IP owned by the redirect's creator, the "static IP" designation for that IP could be dissolved if the redirect's creator moves on and this IP goes into a pool for someone else to use. And if that person were to view or edit Wikipedia anonymously using that IP, they will wonder why they were redirected to the redirect creator's page when trying to look at their user page. If the redirect's creator wants to publicize the fact that they had previously edited from that IP, this should be done on the redirect creator's user page or user talk page. Leaving this redirect in place otherwise has the potential to cause harm in the event someone else uses that IP address to view or edit Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, I'm not sure how speedy deletion criterion U2 may factor into the existence of this redirect, considering that the phrase "...except userpages for anonymous users who have edited..." isn't really clear on how it applies to really anything. Steel1943 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 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.

WBLN (WB 100+)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 8#WBLN (WB 100+)

Olivia Chong[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) 16:31, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; redirect with no properly sourceable reason to exist. The situation here is that the original creator of the article wrongly spelled Chow's surname as Chong in the article body when the article was first created in 2003, even though the page itself was correctly titled -- so the second-ever editor then created this as a redirect. But somehow it went completely undetected until now, the article has contained no content that would explain "Chong" ever since the article's third-ever editor corrected the spelling error the very next day, and there's no evidence in any reliable sources that it's a common enough mistake to justify keeping it as a plausible user error. All in all, it's just not needed. Bearcat (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Implausible typo. No other notable Olivia Chongs. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are better suggested alternatives by pronunciation. But Chow isn't even close. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:14, 8 September 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.

Mahasarakham Rajabhat University[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) 16:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was created as a result of the article about a stadium at the university originally being mistitled. We don't have an article about the university; it should be a red link like the others at Rajabhat University system. Also need histmerge to fix cut&paste move. Paul_012 (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete to foster redlink. AFD the Stadium article as that does not even have an article in the Thai Wikipedia. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to foster redlink. It's not a natural connection and will only serve to annoy readers. Herostratus (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK --Lenticel (talk) 22:38, 4 September 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.

Hurricane Hermine[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 wrong forum - use Wikipedia:Requested moves when you can't move a page due to a redirect (per the instructions). Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be deleted to make room for move from Hurricane Hermine (2016) in accordance with naming without year. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 19:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per G6 - Shouldn't even have to go through this process. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 20:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed it doesn't - if you want to move a page but cannot, for whatever reason, WP:RM is where you need to go. Thryduulf (talk) 20:29, 1 September 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.

Zephyr (software)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 10#Zephyr (software)

Fag enabler[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) 16:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem appropriate to me. How likely is it than someone is going to be typing this disgusting term into Wikipedia's search box, let alone expecting to redirected to an organization known to promote hate speech towards members of the LGBTQ community? I think it violates WP:RDELETE. Scjessey (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a term which Westboro Baptist Church frequently use to describe straight allies. It's not in common usage, so it's strongly associated with WBC. As such, it should be redirected there. Where else would it redirect to? Jim Michael (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not in common usage, why is it a necessary redirect? How likely is it that someone will be searching for this hateful term on Wikipedia? -- Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reason 5. under Reasons for not deleting. That is, it's useful in directing the reader to the article of the organisation which uses, and appears to have invented, the term. I've seen people ask what it means, so there's obviously the need for an explanation. Not everyone who's heard the term will know what it means or who uses it. It doesn't fit any of the Reasons to delete. Jim Michael (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term does not appear in the WBC article, so people searching for it will be none the wiser once redirected. ubiquity (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It used to be mentioned in the WBC article. God Hates Fags, God Hates Fag Enablers and Fags Die God Laughs also redirect to WBC. They're slogans used on their protest boards. Jim Michael (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is mention of it in the context of the "church's" "God Hates India" page, but it's hyphenated, so some browsers may not find it if you do a search. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue God Hates Fag Enablers should also be considered for deletion, for the same reason. It just does not seem like a plausible search term. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unnecessarily pejorative, smacks of non-neutrality. See also the redirect fag-enabler which actually appears in the article. The term also appears (not hyphenated) in The Most Hated Family in America, a related article. If it is decided that there is nothing wrong with the term itself, I suggest retargeting to straight ally, which is likely to be a better match for anyone searching on this term. Lithopsian (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Can't imagine anyone would argue for different fates for the hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions. --BDD (talk) 21:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete (no opinion on keeping or retargetting) Please see WP:RNEUTRAL - redirects do not need to be neutral, and the term is in use (and we shouldn't require people to know whether something is hyphenated or not) so there is no problem with keeping it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the principle of least astonishment, a reader should not be able to click on a link titled that reads "fag enabler" and end up on an article about the Westboro Baptist Church, especially since the target article does not mention the phrase. Without context, the reader will be left wondering how they ended up where they are. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 01:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't go against the principle of least astonishment, because the redirects fag enabler and fag-enabler go to the organisation who often use the term - and the latter redirect is in the WBC article. Jim Michael (talk) 09:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But again, since it appears the terms are only used by the WBC, does that not confirm they are extremely uncommon? The chances of anyone actually searching Wikipedia for one of these terms must be close to zero. I'm perplexed as to why you felt it necessary to create a redirect of this particularly hateful pejorative. I just don't see a reason for its existence. -- Scjessey (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only being used by one organisation actually makes it quite likely that someone will search for it to find out what they are referring to as they wont have context from elsewhere to know about it. The page view stats tool (linked in the nomination) will tell us how many people actually do use these redirects, but unfortunatley the API that it relies on appears to be down at the moment so we'll have to wait. Thryduulf (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a commonly used term, it'd have its own article on Wikipedia or Wiktionary. Its narrow use is why it's not worthy of it's own article - hence it should be a redirect. Jim Michael (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as already mentioned above: The term is not even mentioned in the article (and if it were, then only as a minor side note), thus it's not helpful or meaningful. --KnightMove (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's mentioned in the Hinduism section of the WBC article. An alternative would be to redirect to straight ally. Jim Michael (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Jim Michael: Absolutely not as a redirect to straight ally. Such a redirect could only be interpreted a an attack on straight allies. The fact that the WBC uses this term in their hate speech doesn't really merit a redirect. If a person searches for the term "fag enabler", in the absence of the redirect, the WP search engine will find the WBC article anyway. Creating this as a redirect seems to my mind to legitimize the use of the term. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Two days ago, Lithopsian suggested that we redirect to straight ally. The existence of a redirect isn't legitimising anything. Having the redirects Paki bashing and Nigger guy don't legitimise those terms. Straight ally doesn't mention the term fag enabler, so if we're going to redirect it there, that article should mention that WBC call them that. Jim Michael (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a totally inappropriate redirect, even worse than the one you have created. Maybe we should have a policy of redirecting uncommon pejoratives to pejorative? -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that is that fag enabler isn't mentioned on pejorative, so the reader still wouldn't know what it means. If there were a list of sexuality-based slurs, we could redirect it there. Jim Michael (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bigger problem is that we don't want to enable the people who create these disgusting pejoratives in the first place by legitimizing them with target pages. I'd rather see such terms deleted and salted. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not legitimising them. We have a list of ethnic slurs, with redirects to that. Jim Michael (talk) 19:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that fag-enabler isn't explained on the WBC article, and is only mentioned there once, is no reason to delete the redirect. That's a deficiency in the WBC article, which should be solved by adding an explanation to the article. Jim Michael (talk) 14:08, 8 September 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.

Warnock Hinckley Jr.[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 both.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:09, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PTM and thus unlikely search term. Hinckley is not commonly referred to by middle name and surname alone. --BDD (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both - Keep both per WP:CHEAP, and that there is no rationale listed at WP:R#DELETE for removing the redirects. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    DELETE #2: This could cause confusion if a reader is searching for someone who actually has this name.
    DELETE #3: This could be construed as offensive to anyone who does have this name, by associating them with a criminal.
    DELETE #8: This is a "novel or obscure synonym" for John Hinckley. Actually, that's generous—it's not a synonym at all.
    See also some recent discussions: ex. 1 (several, including Johan Ibsen and Albert Cairns), ex. 2 (several again, including Carlos Santacruz and Watkins Allen), and ex. 3 (batch of 7). --BDD (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply
2) If there is a higher use for this name, then at that time, we can change the redirect to that.
3) The same can be said for Jesse James
8) Redirects are cheap, and many people such as William Frederick Durst are referred to by their middle name. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD's excellent explanation. -- Tavix (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Many individuals are referred to in a way that emphasizes their middle names. Hinckley Jr. is not one of them. I agree with BDD as well. Honestly, I just don't see this as helpful. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There was an article on CNN on him just today, and no mention of "Warnock" was given. He's always referred to as John, and has been for 35 years. Anyone looking for him is not going to use these search terms, and anyone using these search terms is going to be WP:SURPRISEd as to where they end up. CHEAP is not designed as a catch-all to keep useless redirects. MSJapan (talk) 23:46, 10 September 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.

Interstate 13[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 retarget to U.S. Route 17 in North Carolina#Interstate proposals without prejudice to creating a disambiguation later if editorial consensus emerges in favour of that option. WJBscribe (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Target does not mention I-13 any longer. There was a claim in there once that said I-605 was going to be named I-13, but that was removed because is was not substantiated with a reliable source. I propose that this just be deleted since it is nothing but an unused Interstate highway number, MB 02:43, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason to target I-13 to any articles mentioning 13 as anything except an Interstate highway number. So the only one I see as a possibility is US Route 4#History. Even that is weak since the designation as I-13 was only by politicians advocating for a road that their own Highway Department declined to support - so it was just an idea that never got to the planning stages and if that road had been built it probably wouldn't have been called I-13 since per the numbering plan I-13 belongs on the west cost, not in North Carolina. Nevertheless, I-13 is mentioned in US Route 4#History so that could be a target but nothing else qualifies.MB 20:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Either keep it the way it is, or make a disambiguation page that mentions both of the "Interstate 13" proposals. Just because a highway number isn't kept, doesn't mean that a redirect (or in some few cases, a fully-developed article!) should be deleted. Yes, both of those were just proposals, but the information should be kept for anyone looking for it. The information about Interstate 605 being proposed as I-13 should be re-added to that article, too. Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be left the way it is because Interstate 605 doesn't mention it. I followed the redirect there and was initially confused because I found no mention of I-13; that is why I started this discussion. The former mention was removed because there was no reliable source. Unless one is found, it should not be re-added.MB 20:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this title is disambiguated, there's going to have to have a mention of Interstate 13 at the target article. Otherwise, that entry would fail WP:DABMENTION. I don't see anywhere that mentions the proposed California Interstate currently, so that would have to be fixed. -- Tavix (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please actually read the articles I linked above. With the possible exception of the Business Loop, they are all things someone searching for "Interstate 13" could be looking for, regardless of whether they meet some arbitrary style standard for disambiguation pages (which is frequently more concerned with standardisation of style than with helping users find what they are looking for). Thryduulf (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My comment had nothing to do with your links. -- Tavix (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Our standards certainly aren't perfect, but MOS:DABMENTION helps avoid WP:SURPRISE by ensuring readers looking for a topic "Foo" will find it on the page that the dab links to. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguation could be achieved by retargeting to List of highways numbered 13, though that would need to have notes somewhere of the interstates that may have been referred to as 13. --BDD (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I went through the history of the edits on the Interstate 605 page. The I-13 information was added in 2005 and removed in 2015, because it was "highly dubious". Charlotte Allison (Morriswa) (talk) 05:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder whether an Interstate 13 is ever truly likely. See Thirteenth floor, especially #Highways. --BDD (talk) 13:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that U.S. Route 13 exists and at least 30 states have a Highway 13, I don't think there would be any likelihood of 13 not being used as an interstate desigination by virtue of triskaidekaphobia, and even if it was that wouldn't stop it being a useful search term per all my above arguments. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly an off-topic musing on my part, but good point. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 1 September 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.

Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question[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. WJBscribe (talk) 21:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excessively long and fragmented redirect title leading to an section in the target article that no longer exists. Not a very plausible search term since the incident has mostly been forgotten in the years since the pageant. If anyone wants to learn more about the event or winner, they can easily just search Miss Teen USA 2007 or Caitlin Upton 173.3.78.250 (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Not sure about the plausibility, but to shed some light on where this phrase came from, it's the title of the most popular YouTube video of the incident. [1] -- Tavix (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I just rewatched the video, and "Caitlin Upton" is mentioned nowhere. If that's all someone has to go off of, it makes sense to use the video title, especially since it's unlikely they would know her name. I'm weak because page view stats show it's not being used that much. -- Tavix (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unlikely search term. I'm going to give our readers a little bit of credit here that they can parse a YouTube video title into a reasonable search term. shoy (reactions) 16:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Semi-implausible, but unambiguous, and does no harm.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would think it highly unlikely someone would type that into the search box.Jamesbushell.au (talk) 23:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Typing is so last century... I usually click-copy then click-paste into search boxes, adding garnishes like quotation marks as needed. I'm thinking that "hard to type" is beginning to be on the way out as a plausible reason to get rid of a redirect.— Gorthian (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but correct to use the current name of the section. This does seem at first glance like and implausible search term, but the stats show that it gets a steady trickle of people using it - most probably following a link from somewhere external to Wikipedia or using some construction similar enough to this for search engines to give them the redirect as a result. If someone does use this redirect then there is no doubt that the article they reach is the clearly the one they were looking for, so I don't see any benefit to making it harder for them to find. Thryduulf (talk) 11:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. This also doesn't interfere with searches since strings of "Miss Teen USA 200" only return the main pages, then "Miss Teen USA 2007" returns that page and this redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. And don't bother with the section; that quote is the only reason Caitlin Upton has an article at all, and that's pretty much all that's covered. — Gorthian (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per shoy. I just can't get behind this when I've seen headline-ese redirects deleted (ex. 1, ex. 2). I don't think many users would copy and paste the name of the YouTube video as their search term. --BDD (talk) 20:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think many users would do that, but what matters is that they are evidently finding this redirect somehow - the exact how is neither knowable nor relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • An opinion not supported by the facts. Thryduulf (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Thryduulf: Which statistics were you referring to in your previous comment? When I looked at the page view states, I only saw four hits between May 12, 2016 and August 1, 2016. However, I am willing to be persuaded otherwise if you can show me other evidence. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • 25 between 1 January and 31 July spread fairly evenly throughout the period. That's 25 humans who have used this redirect in 7 months, which makes this far from implausible. With 5.2 million articles, one person would reach this article randomly once every 1,424 years assuming 10 visits a day. Special:Random got an average 76 hits a day* in the same period meaning that 1 hit would be expected every 187 years if my maths is correct. (*Although as the figures range from 0 to 15,134 in a day I don't have great confidence in their reliability - @MusikAnimal (WMF): any thoughts?). 3.6 per month is much greater than that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand your argument, but I just don't think that 25 hits in seven months is significant enough to justify keeping this redirect. For all we know, those hits could have been generated by people playing around with the search function; when I type "Miss Teen USA 2007" in the search box, "Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question" is the second suggestion to drop down ... it's entirely plausible that ~25 readers saw that suggestion and clicked in out of sheer curiosity. Or perhaps the creator of this redirect likes to visit it every now and then to see if it still works. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Those are entirely possible, but (a) do you have any proof or convincing arguments that it is more likely than people looking actively looking for this, and (b) even if it is only people viewing it out of curiosity, why is that a bad thing and why does it justify deleting the redirect? Wikipedia's goal is to educate people and if someone finds this redirect and learns about the subject and then most probably* follows links in the article to learn about other things they didn't know (*because they have already followed one link out of curiosity it is likely they will follow another), possibly improving articles they find along the way. My basic point is that to delete a redirect like this I have to be convinced that deletion is the most beneficial to the project and it's readers, and nothing posted in this discussion so far has shown me any benefit from deleting it, let alone sufficient benefit to outweigh those from keeping it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just to clarify, pageviews are not the same as unique users, so 25 pageviews could actually be one person. Unique users would require recording IP addresses which we don't do out of respect for privacy. @Thryduulf: I'm not sure about Special:Random. Pageviews are recorded for Special pages, but I believe this one is exceptional because it isn't a page you can browse to, and internally acts as a 302 redirect instead of a 301 which is what redirect pages return. Why some pageviews managed to get recorded I am not sure... I will ask the analytics team! MusikAnimal (WMF) (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Searching for "Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question" should point to "Miss Teen USA 2007" quite high on the search result list. It is number 2 on my results, behind this redirect. So the redirect is actually confusing searches, by hinting to the reader that we have two different articles. - Nabla (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete searching for Miss Teen USA 2007 is good enough to get readers to the page. Both Miss Teen USA 2007 and Caitlin Upton articles reference the exact quote. The particular YouTube video has 65 million hits and has been referred to by news sources such as the New York Daily News. [2] but it is not described in either of the two articles or its impact as a meme described. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible.  — Scott • talk 14:33, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • See comments about about page views and Tavix's comment regarding the video that clearly demonstrate that this is a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've made your opinion quite clear a number of times now. Please stop bludgeoning this discussion.  — Scott • talk 23:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not "bludgeoning" to point out that the factual basis of a !vote is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          That's a bit strong. There are demonstrably views, yes, but we don't know where they're coming from. I assume Scott means to say this is an implausible search term, which may well be correct, though I admit the difficulty of calling something as subjective as that. It's not inconceivable that no one has gone to the search box with the intention of typing in this term as is. --BDD (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well given that this is the title of a video, I can see someone typing (or more likely pasting) this into the search box on Wikipedia or a search engine. Even if they are not typing this exact phrase it's different enough from the target page title that some search terms will find this before the target. Thryduulf (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete seems like an WP:XY as well. It's very implausible that someone would type in a hyphen into the search query when it's clearly not a part of a title.--Prisencolin (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:XY is about searching for two (or more) topics that are not treated together, whereas this is clearly ssearching for exactly one thing. The evidence detailed above shows that this is not implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is neither an established, nor a plausible term. Any Youtube video gets the title the uploader has chosen. This does not make the title relevant. --KnightMove (talk) 20:31, 2 September 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.

Longest books[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An analogous redirect to the List of longest novels page, Longest book, was deleted in 2014 as a result of an RfD. I think we should have both of these redirects, or neither, as their respective rationales are very similar. I propose that Longest book be restored. The definitions section of List of longest novels ameliorates the concern raised in the previous RfD, that the redirect is inaccurate due to the discrepancy of scope between 'book' and 'novel'. Wrelwser43 (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with the previous decision. Especially since these terms are used in distinct ways on Wikipedia (cf. WP:NCBOOKS), we should avoid confusing or misleading readers. --BDD (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this is the only relevant list we have, and it's not inaccurate even if it is not an exact match so readers will be served better by this redirect than by uncertain search results, an error page or an invitation to create an article (depending on how they arrived at this title). Thryduulf (talk) 07:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is inaccurate, though. A list of longest books would surely include some novels listed at the target page, but not all. A redirect from a narrower topic would be more defensible. Consider especially that a reader could be at the list of novels and say "Hmm, I wonder what the longest books in general are?" just to be looped right back, their actual query unacknowledged. --BDD (talk) 13:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both for consistency with the singular version and because, despite people's conflation of "longest book" and "longest novel", books are not novels or necessarily even fiction. There are very long nonfiction books whose length may or may not exceed the longest fiction works. (Think of the Oxford English Dictionary, an illuminated Qur'an, the complete works of Cicero.) Maybe if this is a red link, it will encourage someone to make a list article. — Gorthian (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete potential confusion since books aren't necessarily equal to novels --Lenticel (talk) 00:26, 5 September 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.

Akanwali 125106[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 8#Akanwali 125106

Wikipedia:NOL[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) 16:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as illogical redirect, since the word "research" does not begin with the letter "L". I intend to make {{nol}} and {{NOL}} redirect to {{nolead}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:39, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not sure the rationale makes more sense than the redirect, but I'm just commenting that the original redirect stood for 'No Original Logic', a now abandoned section in NOR[3]. Maybe it's an appropriate pseudonym, or maybe not? -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since no one else is commenting I'll go with delete. The policy addition was promptly removed, it's not likely to be confused with NOR, and the only accidental usage was intended to be for WP:NPOL. Still I'm not convinced it should interpreted as No Lede either. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:01, 2 September 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.

Streets of Compton (series)[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. -- Tavix (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The series does not exist and it is poorly notable through the targeted article. 206.125.47.10 (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep yes the series exists — the target article states, with a source, that Streets of Compton is a soundtrack album to support his show on A&E with the same name. It's a three part documentary series that aired on June 9, 2016. Furthermore, "poorly notable" is not a redirect deletion criterion. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' to encourage creation of Streets of Compton (TV series), should the series be notable. There's no point of having all these redirects like (album) (documentary) and (series) when there is only one article that encompasses all of those. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There probably should be an article on the series, but until then, there's information on it at the target article. Really, the non-standard disambiguator here makes it more innocuous IMO, since the proper title, as cited by AngusWOOF, remains red. --BDD (talk) 20:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 07:30, 1 September 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.

African stereotypes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 14#African stereotypes

Ralph DeLoach[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 article created. -- Tavix (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting WP:REDLINK deletion. I presume Ralph is Jerry's father, but he isn't mentioned at the target. Ralph had a (brief) NFL career, which makes him notable in his own right proof. -- Tavix (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll create this article shortly. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:05, 6 September 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.

User:DogChops[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 soft redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross name space redirect. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 02:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect. This maintains the link the user desired but eliminates all the problems caused by hard redirecting the main userpage to an article. Thryduulf (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Redirect per Thryduulf seems to be the best compromise --Lenticel (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Redirect per those above.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 06:22, 8 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_1&oldid=1136721940"