Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Administrator instructions

[edit] Current list

[edit] November 11

[edit] T:WPBIO

• T:WPBIO → Template:WPBiography (links to redirect) (stats) 

What's the reason to create a redirect to a template like that? I don't find any use for this. Magioladitis (talk) 13:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well.. I'll tell you the reason I created it. I do a lot of manual placing of that template and found myself having to refer back to this list of parameters when adding those specific workgroups to individual bios because I can never remember the names of these darn parameters, so I created a quick lil shortcut to take me directly there to that section. So you may not find any use for it but I certainly do. But if others also think it's useless then it's not a big deal to me if it gets deleted. -- œ^™ 13:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Peas Prize

• Nobel Peas Prize → Nobel Peace Prize (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete. Really now, "Nobel Peas Prize?" This is either a joke, or a very unlikely misspelling. Besides, in the rare event that someone does search that, the mistake is easily recognized and corrected. Jedibob5 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks like a leftover as the result of prior pagemove vandalism. Unlikely misspelling. -- œ^™ 13:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] V TV Series

• V TV Series → V (TV series) (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete, as an unhelpful redirect. This is an unneeded redirect from an unlikely "alternate" misspelling. The danger in it is that it can very easily be misdirected, which is an issue which I have just corrected.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of Falun Gong practitioners

• List of Falun Gong practitioners → Falun Gong (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete, link has lost its raison d'etre - the content redirected to no longer exists. Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 05:55, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 10

[edit] Creationism in a cheap lab coat

• Creationism in a cheap lab coat → Intelligent design (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unhelpful redirect from apparent jargon--see [1] DGG ( talk ) 23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to get much traffic, amusing though it is, I don't think it's a solid search term.   pablo_hablo. 09:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Bayer designations (II)

• D Aurigae → Delta Aurigae
• L Aurigae → Lambda Aurigae
• M Aurigae → Mu Aurigae
• N Aurigae → Nu Aurigae
• M Arietis → Mu Arietis
• N Arietis → Nu Arietis
• O Arietis → Omicron Arietis
• P Arietis → Pi Arietis
• A Arae → Alpha Arae
• B Arae → Beta Arae
• D Arae → Delta Arae
• E Arae → Eta Arae
• G Arae → Gamma Arae
• A Aquilae → Altair (= α Aquilae = α Aql)
• A Aql → Altair (= α Aquilae = α Aql)
• K Aquilae → Kappa Aquilae
• M Aquilae → Mu Aquilae
• N Aquilae → Nu Aquilae

These redirects are all from a Bayer designation of a star with a Roman letter to the corresponding Bayer designation with a Greek letter (a → α, b → β, etc.) Unfortunately, Greek and Roman letters are not interchangeable inside Bayer designations. In the list above, although the Greek-lettered designations specify stars, the Roman-lettered designations do not—they are meaningless. (Two exceptions are A and K Aquilae, above; some sources give A Aquilae as a designation for 28 Aquilae (HD 181333) and/or k Aquilae as a designation for 37 Aquilae (HD 184492.) These usages are not universal though, and in any case, the redirects currently present are definitely wrong.)

These redirects should therefore be deleted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 16, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 4, and #Incorrect Bayer designations below for previous discussion on similar redirects. Spacepotato (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per spacepotato's reasoning. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hiroshima terrorist attack

• Hiroshima terrorist attack → Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (links to redirect) (stats) 

Per WP:R#DELETE, this redirect is "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" and as such "is unlikely to be useful." A Google search reveals just 81 hits on the phrase "Hiroshima terrorist attack", not all of which are even relevant. In short it is incredibly unlikely that anyone will type this phrase into the search bar in an effort to find the article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To top it off, the redirect was created in a rather pointy manner in response to a current RfD discussion (see here and here for relevant info). Unneeded, and we ought not encourage the creation of these kind of redirects. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:POINT is about disrupting, not improving, Wikipedia. The previous discussion identified a missing redirect, which I rectified by creating it. It's an absolutely POV phrase referring to the target of the redirect. The nominator's Google search includes quotes around the entire phrase; if you change it to this you get 62,600 ghits.

Specific RS citations supporting this phrase (either advocating or refuting it) may include Moscow Top News, Counterpunch, Council for Foreign Relations, Economic and Political Weekly, San Diego Business Journal, The Journal of Conflict Resolution, and Foreign Policy magazine, for some starters. Jclemens (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Redirects are for exact phrases, not for google searches using one word and two words grouped together via quotation. My google search shows that the prevalence of the exact phrase "Hiroshima terrorist attack" is extremely low, which suggests it's an unlikely search by a reader (honestly--do you believe a reader is going to type that exact phrase?). Is there a literature arguing that the atomic bombings of Japan by the U.S. should be viewed as an act of (state) terrorism? Absolutely, and I'm actually familiar with it, and have argued for some discussion of this literature in a different article (not incidentally, if we really wanted this redirect it should go here where this issue is actually discussed). But it is extremely unlikely that "Hiroshima terrorist attack" is a useful redirect. Finally, if Jclemens is really looking to facilitate better searching here, he or she presumably would have created redirects like Hiroshima and Nagasaki terrorist attack, Nagasaki terrorist attack, American terrorist attack on Japan, etc. Yet the only redirect created was one referenced as non-existent in a contentious RfD (incidentally "previous discussion identified a missing redirect" rather stretches credulity as a description of the interaction that led to the redirect being created). So, yes, I think it was created in significant part to make a point, namely the point that it's okay to create as many non-NPOV redirects as we want. That does not mean it's a good idea, and Jclemens does not convince me the redirect is remotely useful or needed as a search option. I'll leave this discussion there as this is silly enough as it is. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus is that this redirect is useful, then the additional ones you proposed(?) seem reasonable to me. Knowing full well that this would likely become a test case, I didn't see any point in creating every potentially useful NPOV redirect related to the topic in question. That would have more accurately been construed as slightly disruptive, since we can have the same conversation with one redirect or four. I appreciate your suggestion of a better redirect target, and would welcome such a modification to the redirect under discussion, even while this discussion is ongoing. Jclemens (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Yes, WP:POINT is the disruption of the Wikipedia, which is exactly what Jclemens is doing here, as this stems from an intentional redlink in this RfD. It was a redlink made by another user to highlight an absurdity in the Ft. Hood discussions. The idea of the Hiroshima bombing being an act of terrorism is so far out of the mainstream its not even funny. Hell, it doesn't even qualify as a fringe theory, it si so far ot there. Implausible, disruptive redirect. Tarc (talk) 23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Please cease accusations of bad faith and actually refute the RS I listed above. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete a redirect, even though I can empathize with the sentiment in this case: I don't hold the view that it's terrorism either, but plenty of sources do. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Stop acting in bad faith and you will no longer be accused of it. As for sources....left-wing websites, Soviet-era propaganda, and CAIR are hardly what one would describe as reliable, non-partisan sources. Tarc (talk) 12:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete — pointy nomination, POV, term rarely if ever used to describe redirect target. Spacepotato (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete WP:POINT. Sad to see administrators behaving this way. Grsz¹¹ 00:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • What, actually reading the policies and following them? Rather, it's too bad that other editors don't take the time to do so. Note that you've articulated no reason for deletion. Jclemens (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of national languages of India

• List of national languages of India → Languages of India (links to redirect) (stats) 

The whole title is wrong cuz there is no national language of India but only official language's & hence the word national language or list of national language goes wrong . Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 17:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep While the term "national language" is not officially recognized by the Govt of India, it is commonly used to describe the Eighth Schedule languages. Gbooks shows significant usage of the term, and also a couple of books explaining it. Since we aren't talking about the article's title, but a redirect, this is valid. -SpacemanSpiff 20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - whether the government use the term is irrelevant - you have to consider that an encyclopaedia user might use this as a search term. If so, they will redirected to the correct article to enlighten themselves, rather than a page suggesting that they create an article with this title.   pablo_hablo. 20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

but can anyone say this title is not misguiding ??.... so would u suggest tht an article may be created as the earth's 2nd moon & redirect it to the real one ??.....this reason doesn't support the cause . if as per you an article with the same title is created in future then an AFD may be brought . we'll if in case this redirects deletion request fails & if i rewrite the redirect as an article bringing the real picture & terminate the redirect will anyone oppose ?? .....i never bring an AFD to any meaningful wiki stuff until they r terribly misguiding like this one . hope you all understand . thanks .--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 11:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

But one of the reasons for redirects is to guide people to the correct article when they type the wrong thing in the search bar. See Barock obama for instance. It really doesn't matter that the title of the redirect is incorect as long as the user is then directed to the correct article. If you examine the statistices here it seems that over a thousand people per month are searching for this term so it is a useful thing; without the redirect these people would be getting a message saying "List of national languages of India does not exist - would you like to create it?" which would be bad because the article "List of national languages of India" should not exist. Happily it doesn't.   pablo_hablo. 11:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

well.....i agree tht ur info's r convincing ....thanks .....this may be a spelling mistake & doesn't misguide the people ...... it would be nice had there been a redirect as languages with official status in india but not this which is nowhere near a reasonable redirect . but again i say ....ur info's r convincing .....--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 12:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SPartan II project

• SPartan II project → Characters of Halo#Spartans (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete - extremely unlikely capitalization typo. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 10:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Have you never had your finger held down the the Shift key by mistake? If so, congratulations. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment Wikimedia software will automagically bring you to the proper page without this particular capitalization, unless you use it as an internal link, in which case it shouldn't exist anyways. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as a very likely typo (WP:RFD#KEEP). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment It's a typo that should not be used as an internal link, and doesn't need to exist for searchbox navigation because Wikipedia automatically finds that page anyways. If you type "SPARtan II project" into the search box, it automagically finds the closest matching page, should we create a redirect for SPARtan II project then? What about Spartan Ii project , since that's also a shift-key mistake. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New states (German geography)

• New states (German geography) → New states of Germany (links to redirect) (stats)

• New Federal states → New states of Germany (links to redirect) (stats)

• New federal states of Germany → New states of Germany (links to redirect) (stats)

all these redirects are unlikely search terms, or slightly misspelled versions of an already existing redirect, all created yesterday during a revert war. Nero the second (talk)

• Delete first two, but keep last one. The second is clearly too vague to be useful, while the first is highly unlikely (more likely to be searched: New states (Germany)). The third is foreseeable enough to be worthy of keeping. It is a common misconception that the general Wikipedia user would be searching in the same manner as the general Wikipedia editor. I'd also strongly suggest a renaming of the target article to have it conform more in terms of WP:NAME as "new" itself can be POV (and the title implies a list article). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete the second one as extremely vague, no opinion on the other two. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Saint Joseph's Convent School (disambiguation)

• Saint Joseph's Convent School (disambiguation) → Holy Family Convent Senior Secondary School, Khurai (links to redirect) (stats) 

A dab title that redirects to the main one. It redirects to a different title right now due to some page move vandalism which has since been fixed. -SpacemanSpiff 03:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No longer a need for this page. Boleyn2 (talk) 06:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Bayer designations

• D Andromedae → Delta Andromedae
• E Andromedae → Epsilon Andromedae
• G Andromedae → Gamma Andromedae
• G And → Gamma Andromedae
• I Andromedae → Iota Andromedae
• K Andromedae → Kappa Andromedae
• L Andromedae → Lambda Andromedae
• M Andromedae → Mu Andromedae
• N Andromedae → Nu Andromedae
• P Andromedae → Pi Andromedae
• B Apodis → Beta Apodis
• D Apodis → Delta Apodis
• G Apodis → Gamma Apodis
• I Apodis → Iota Apodis
• D Capricorni → Delta Capricorni
• G Capricorni → Gamma Capricorni
• I Capricorni → Iota Capricorni
• K Capricorni → Kappa Capricorni
• L Capricorni → Lambda Capricorni
• M Capricorni → Mu Capricorni
• N Capricorni → Nu Capricorni
• P Capricorni → Pi Capricorni
• A CMi → Procyon (= α CMi = α Canis Minoris)
• A CMa → Sirius (= α CMa = α Canis Majoris)
• M Ara → Mu Arae (= Mu Ara)
• A Canis Majoris → Sirius (= α CMa = α Canis Majoris)
• B Canis Majoris → Beta Canis Majoris
• D Canis Majoris → Delta Canis Majoris
• G Canis Majoris → Gamma Canis Majoris
• I Canis Majoris → Iota Canis Majoris
• K Canis Majoris → Kappa Canis Majoris
• N Canis Majoris → Nu Canis Majoris
• O Canis Majoris → Omega Canis Majoris
• A Canis Minoris → Procyon (= α CMi = α Canis Minoris)
• E Canis Minoris → Epsilon Canis Majoris

These redirects are all from a Bayer designation of a star with a Roman letter to the corresponding Bayer designation with a Greek letter (a → α, b → β, etc.) Unfortunately, Greek and Roman letters are not interchangeable inside Bayer designations. In the list above, although the Greek-lettered designations specify stars, the Roman-lettered designations do not—they are meaningless. These redirects should therefore be deleted. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 16 and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 4 for previous discussion on similar redirects. Spacepotato (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Update: I added some more which should be deleted for the same reason. Spacepotato (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC) Spacepotato (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per Spacepotato's reasoning. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 9

[edit] Canterbury cathedral facts

• Canterbury cathedral facts → Canterbury Cathedral (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete as an implausible redirect. Tavix |  Talk  23:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. While not entirely implausible, we allow ourselves to assume that our readers understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Redirects like "Foo article", "Foo facts", etc. are not needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Article should have been speedy deleted rather than turned into an implausible redirect. Stephen! ^Coming... 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fort Hood terrorist attack

• Fort Hood terrorist attack → Fort Hood shooting (links to redirect) (stats) 

Speedy delete this. It amounts to a POV-fork and a BLP violation against the suspect. The article List of terrorist incidents, 2009 ‎had to be protected because of this dispute, and it should be stopped now instead of spreading further. If the FBI declares this to be a terrorist attack, then and only then would this redirect be appropriate. ~YellowFives 22:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep - 276,000 Google hits, an often-used term to refer to the event. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Those off-wiki opinions are of course irrelevant to WP:NPOV and WP:BLP ~YellowFives 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, clearly speedy delete. There is no such thing as the "Fort Hood Terrorist Attack" and it's unlikely anyone would search for the incident under that moniker. Normally redirects are harmless, but this one is not. There's an ongoing POV battle afoot whether to describe the incident as terrorist or not, given that the perpetrator is Muslim, the attack was on American soldiers, etc., not very cool stuff. We try to avoid labeling things as terrorist per WP:TERRORIST, so the only way this is legitimate is if this is a common way to refer to the incident. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:45, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

How is this a BLP issue? Also see September 11 terrorist attack --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a BLP violation, because on every related page, William, you keep trying to call this living person a terrorist when the FBI has not concluded that he is. ~YellowFives 22:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources and experts have as well. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey
• Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT)
• Former CIA bin Laden Unit Head Michael Scheuer
• Terrorism expert Walid Phares
• General Barry McCaffrey
• Numerous others

And none of them are Wikipedians (for the record, both Lieberman and Phares said it might be terrorism, and I'm not surprised that you continue to distort this). None of those people are bound by our policies. We have to abide by BLP and NPOV, and you are trying to spread the edit war that got List of terrorist incidents, 2009 protected. We wait for the FBI to make the call. ~YellowFives 23:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We are not bound by the FBI. We are bound by reliable sources and experts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

We are bound by BLP, and it is a BLP violation to call this man a terrorist before the FBI does. ~YellowFives 01:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Where is that written at WP:BLP? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, etc. Grsz¹¹ 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I declined G10 in favor of this discussion. The redirect is not an egregious BLP violation: plenty of media and pundits are speculating on terrorist connections. Thus, the redirect may serve a useful purpose--a lack of useful purpose is a criterion for G10. I take no position on the redirect's overall value, but note that G10 is for things where no good faith dissent exists--the fact that there is such dissent already registered above makes G10 inappropriate in this case. Jclemens (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

BLP is always speedy. The standard for BLP violations is not "no good faith dissent exists" for committing a BLP violation, it is poorly sourced claims about living individuals. To have Wikipedia claim that the man is a terrorist is a BLP violation but, beyond, something of a weird embarrassment on the project. I suggest blanking the redirect as a BLP matter or otherwise hiding it while we discuss. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:TERRORIST, this is simply an NPOV violation, not a BLP violation. The redirect asserts nothing about the incident. Really, a lot of you need to read WP:R#Neutrality of redirects. There is no confusion, no harm to the suspect, and no compelling reason for this redirect to be deleted outside of process. Again, feel free to SNOW close this, but premature, out-of-policy modifications citing BLP inappropriately are disruptive and coercive. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:TERRORIST is a style guideline, and correct me if I'm wrong but it is my understanding that guidelines do not trump policies like WP:BLP. The redirect asserts that it is a terrorist incident. And of course is harm to the suspect. There is prima facie harm in being called a terrorist. ~YellowFives 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

... Which is all well and good, but the redirect describes the attack a terrorist attack, not the suspect a terrorist. You've got to climb that hurdle before it becomes a BLP issue, and you'd have to WP:SYNTH to get there from here. Jclemens (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That's a bridge too far, and strains all credulity to breaking. There cannot be a terrorist attack without a terrorist. The only suspect is Hasan. If this is a terrorist attack, then Hasan is a suspected terrorist. And the FBI hasn't said that yet, so we've crossed the line of BLP. Your logic does not convince. ~YellowFives 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So... it's OK to "call" him a suspected multiple murderer, but not to "call" him a suspected terrorist? Ooooookay. I find that argument singularly unconvincing. BLP either applies to both, or neither. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it's OK to call him a suspected multiple murderer. I have been concentrating on the worst because that's all that I have the energy for. "Terrorist" is such a highly charged and political term that it is more prejudicial than almost anything imaginable. If we could put this behind us (yeah right, I know) then I might have the energy for "multiple murderer." ~YellowFives 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete:Not terrorism until reliable sources claim it is. There is also the BLP problem with the alleged portrayer. Martin451 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  Reliable sources are listed above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - No indication that it's a terrorist attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  According to reliable sources it is. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

  Personal opinions of random public figures. Irrelevant. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The opinions come from experts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Who are merely speculating on this case, therefore their opinions are irrelevant. Until the facts are in, Jessica Simpson's opinion would be every bit as valid. Or Homer's, for that matter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I would disagree on that point. I feel the opinions of Michael Mukasey, Michael Scheuer, Barry McCaffrey are relevant on the topic. Regardless, the term Fort Hood terrorist attack is widely used and is therefore a legitimate redirect. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

They might be experts on the general topic, but that doesn't mean they know diddly about this case. For all we know, the guy could simply be a lunatic. Or a government agent trying to make Muslims look bad. Mass murder doesn't become terrorism just because he's Muslim. The mass murderers in the Columbine High School massacre aren't labeled terrorists, for example. And until there is proof, and not the personal opinions of people with no connection to this case, then it ain't terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That is simply your opinion. For many others, this is the term used to describe the event. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

And that's their opinion. Unless they are privy to inside information in this specific case, their opinions mean nothing more than those of Mickey Mouse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is the term not being widely used? --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, by the right-wing tin foil hat-wearing bloggers you're probably reading. Grsz¹¹ 02:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're referring to Fox News. --William S. Saturn (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Not at all actually. Grsz¹¹ 02:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, there ya are, the personal opinion of Bill O'Reilly. Whoop-di-doo. And it doesn't matter how "widely used" an accusation is, because BLP trumps such "wide use". Now, if someone actually involved with the case, such as the FBI, labels it terrorism, then you've got something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I admire William S. Saturn's tenacity, but consensus over several different articles he's edited is to avoid calling this a terrorist attack for now. This redirect is a POV fork and potential BLP violation. By avoiding the term "terrorism" for now, Wikipedia is not saying that it is definitively not terrorism, it is just remaining silent on the issue while facts are being sorted out. Based on available information it seems premature to make a definitive statement that this is terrorism. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Well-stated. I was thinking about the McVeigh case and why it was called terrorism and why Columbine wasn't. It was because McVeigh's was a specifically political act, to try to inflict pain upon the U.S.A. Likewise with the 9/11 attacks. The Columbine kids were just trying to inflict pain and suffering on their classmates. And we don't know yet whether the killer in this case was making a political statement or if he just went nuts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirects aren't assertions of anything in particular. They're navigational aids that help people get to the right Wikipedia article. NPOV redirects are encouraged in WP:R, and POV forks are to be turned into... wait for it... redirects! Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Outright calling the man a terrorist, though, is more than a POV problem. It wouldn't be as big a deal if he were dead, but he's going to stand trial for this. I looked at WP:R but this is different both on its face and in its consequences from [[Barack Obama Muslim rumor|Barack Obama Muslim rumor] ~YellowFives 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Outright calling WHICH man a terrorist? A suspect to multiple murders is documented by RS in the target article. The redirect asserts that the multiple murders were a terrorist attack. The redirect does not assert that the suspect is a terrorist, just that the attack was terrorism. POV yes (which means a redirect), but not BLP. Jclemens (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Aren't "terrorist attacks" generally held to be done by, y'know, "terrorists" ? Calling it by the former implies the latter. Tarc (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It has not been legally established that any particular individual conducted the attack, has it? "Innocent until proven guilty" works both ways. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So your position is that the attack itself was an act of terrorism, but since the suspect in question is only that, a suspect, that we cannot connect A --> B --> C? You are, at best, excusing the BLP concerns via technicality. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Neither I nor the redirect are asserting anything. You REALLY need to think through what redirects are and do: they take people from the "wrong" search term to the "right" search term. In order to deal with POV readers who search for POV things, we create redirects from POV names to NPOV articles. The redirect is POV, the article title is NPOV. That's that way it's supposed to be. We don't make people guess to try and find an NPOV name for what they're looking for, we create the NPOV terms and redirect them to a neutrally written place. THAT is why this redirect exists, and THAT is completely missing from most of the argumentation on this page. Jclemens (talk) 21:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That is definitely not why this redirect exists. This redirect exists because William has chosen to disrupt Wikipedia through his relentless POV pushing, and he was frustrated that List of terrorist incidents, 2009 had been protected. We still have no reason to think that anyone but William is using this redirect. ~YellowFives 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Poor motivation isn't sufficient reason to delete an otherwise acceptable redirect. Redirects are the place where POV pushers can have the most success, because NPOV doesn't apply. As long as a term is covered reasonably by RS (a much lower threshold than WP:N), it's OK for an NPOV redirect to exist. I don't frequent current events articles, and I haven't made any edits to the target article, the list of terrorism events, etc. As far as I'm concerned, the local consensus in all those places to avoid calling it a terrorist act is just fine. I came here because I patrol attack pages, and this redirect, which doesn't mention the suspect by name, was nominated for G10. In many ways, NPOV redirects serve to "throw a bone" to significant minorities, although there are perennial debates on which should be the article and which should be the redirect (Sears Tower comes to mind). Redirects aren't assertions of fact, they're redirections to articles that discuss things in an NPOV manner. BTW, you're making excellent arguments for someone so new to Wikipedia--you just don't happen to have persuaded me. :-) Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I really appreciate the compliment. Wikipedia is through the looking glass, everyday terms each have a unique and counterintuitive meaning here and it's been kind of exhausting to learn them. But it seems like it's hard to be taken seriously unless you know all the acronyms! And I've had people tell me that policies don't mean such and such, when I just read the policy yesterday. So thank you, Jclemens, you're the first person to say so. —— I must say if NPOV is not meant to apply at all to redirects, I think that is a mistake, and I think it's more reasonable to at least have these discussions to differentiate good faith disagreement from wanton POV pushing. ~YellowFives 01:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. There is existing speculation that this might have been intended as a terror attack, so this is at least a likely search term. I can't say I like William S. Saturn's attempts to portray this as definitely a terrorist incident all over the encyclopedia, but of course RfD is not a forum for such matters in any case. For me, the BLP concerns are trumped by the fact that this redirect points to an article that (currently) explains that the attacker's motives are (again, currently) unknown. However, I'm certainly mindful of those BLP arguments, so this is only a weak keep. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Would Nazi Pope be an acceptable redirect to Pope Benedict XVI? Lots of people call him the Nazi Pope so it's a likely search term, and the article mentions that he was in the Luftwaffenhelfer. I think it would be unacceptable to slight the man by outright calling him a fascist like that, but I can't see anything in your argument that would preclude doing so. ~YellowFives 05:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

My argument is meant to be specific to this case, not a comprehensive test for all such cases. Having said that, I don't see where you arrive at such a conclusion. Speculation about a terrible event is not the same as the collection of all possible derogatory nicknames for all possible people. — Gavia immer (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I call Godwin's law--you lose. :-) Jclemens (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I said we shouldn't call the Pope a Nazi. That was a preemptive strike against Godwin. ;-) ~YellowFives 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I see this as a BLP issue, regardless of what redirect guidelines say. There's no reason we should cater to people coming here to find out who the "Fort Hood terrorist" was. Just because people are speculating it was terrorism, with absolutely no conclusive proof, doesn't mean we should pander to that motivation. The existence of the redirect implies that Wikipedia agrees the living person could be a terrorist. In fact, there is no reliable evidence at all that this was a "terrorist" attack. Franamax (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete POV fork to finesse consensus at Fort Hood shooting, WP:BLP and WP:POINT, at least, also apply. PhGustaf (talk) 06:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete – a little too POV in my view. MuZemike 06:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Possible search term. Not a BLP issue since nobody disputes that a shooting took place there. What's not yet legally certain is who is responsible, but the redirect does not imply that the current suspect did it. As to whether it should be properly called a terrorist attack or whatever, that's a matter for discussion at the target article, but as long as at least some reliable media use "terrorist attack", I see nothing wrong in using it as a redirect. The possible motivations of the redirect creator (who I do not know) ought not to matter.  Sandstein  06:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Serious POV issues with this redirect, and "possible search term" is a pretty weak keep rationale given that. The relevant authorities in the United States (military, FBI, etc.) simply are not referring to this as a terrorist attack at this time—full stop. If they do that would change things, obviously, but we're not at all there yet. The fact that some media commentators are referring to this as a terrorist incident no more forces us to create this redirect than does the fact that some media sources are talking about the shooting as PTSD related force us to create a Fort Hood shooting caused by PTSD redirect. Limiting conjecture and speculation about this event is a good thing for us to do, and POV redirects don't help us with that. Also the fact that William S. Saturn is pushing this "it was terrorism" meme on multiple pages (very much against consensus) is extremely relevant as the activities are rather disruptive, at least in my view. Given that context, validation of this POV, somewhat pointy redirect is not remotely a good idea. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - there is a bit of agenda-pushing behind this, and while redirects are mostly exempt from WP:NPOV, I think this should wait until the event is actually classified as an act of terrorism. A similar situation, the Hasan Akbar case does not have any terrorism-related redirects, for example. I don't find it to be a plausible search term, and just looking up Fort Hood will get you to the article easier. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't have a redirect at Hiroshima terrorist attack, we discuss in the article the fact that some authorities identify it as terrorism. We don't have that redirect, and should not have the one under discussion, because they are not likely search terms, not the names by which the events are normally known, and give undue weight to a single interpretation of a more complex event. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • That's an interesting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but there's no particular policy reason why that would be a redirect disallowed by policy. I think I'll go create it. Jclemens (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Ugh, to be frank, that was a rather insulting display of pointy-ness on your part. Please lessen the drama here and delete that Hiroshima redirect; we can't retroactively apply labels to events that predate the present-day notions of terrorism, otherwise we'll get into Terrorist attacks on Custer, Guy Fawkes terrorist incident, and so on. Tarc (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Ugh indeed. I've nominated it for RfD as it's not really a plausible or useful search term, and as the redirect was pretty clearly created to make a point. You make a worthwhile point in your !vote below Jclemens, but the tone of your comment and the creation of the Hiroshima redirect don't do you a lot of credit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
        • (shrug) Guy brought it up. I see since that point a few even "worse" potential redirects were listed in this discussion, but what you might not be aware of is that there are plenty of applicable RS'es that endorse or refute the position that Hiroshima was a terrorist attack, as you can see in that RfD. WP:POINT is about disrupting Wikipedia; I have instead improved it by adding a redirect, as can be seen by my detailed presentation of sources in that other discussion. If improving Wikipedia lessens my stature in your eyes... well, sorry, but I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Obviously we disagree about whether or not your addition of a redirect improved Wikipedia, so simply asserting that you improved things does not particularly convince me. Of course we're both here to write an encyclopedia so perhaps the pieties are best left to the side. And I'm quite familiar with the arguments for and against Hiroshima and Nagasaki being construed as state terrorism—the fact that said arguments exist does not militate one way or another in favor of a redirect. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
            • Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of war against a nation that declared war on us. Even so, there is no BLP issue there, only a political debate about whether the Allies had the "moral right" to end the war in the Pacific that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. There have been on-going and disruptive arguments on the Talk:Fort Hood shooting about the topic of labeling this incident as a terrorist attach, and the consensus is to not do so. This redirect seems to be just an end-around this consensus by those pushing the POV that it is a terrorist attack. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and strike all !votes which reference NPOV, which is not a policy-supported reason for deletion of redirects. Sorry, but the level of knee-jerk silliness in this thread demands that editors with an actual policy clue speak up. Sandstein has it right. Jclemens (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how "I don't like the way other people are voting" is a policy-supported reason for keeping. In the most favorable light of your argument, there is no policy-supported reason to either delete or keep. So we default to consensus. (Note I disagree with this, and there is the obvious BLP problem with calling him a terrorist, but even setting that aside.) ~YellowFives 23:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to explain, then. Saying "Delete, NPOV redirect" is something akin to saying "Delete, article has too many sources". It's nonsensical, because that criterion doesn't apply to that sort of Wikipedia object. Look at WP:R#Neutrality of redirects; NPOV redirects are encouraged. Jclemens (talk) 23:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all know that, but at some point there is a line that gets crossed, Many here seem to feel that the line-crossing happens when the label "terrorist" is used, directly or indirectly, to refer to something that is not classified as a terrorist act, or a person who has not been convicted of terrorism, etc... 0bama and Nobama are popular non-NPOV terms within conservatism as well, but we don't create redirects to the president for them here since that would be going to far into BLP-violating territory. (and please do not pull another Hiroshima on the above links, thanks). Tarc (talk) 23:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff exists/doesn't exist seems to be the only argument being used here. This is a common term, which is what a redirect is used for. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Your one-liners about google hits and "common terms" and such are not terribly convincing, no matter how many times you repeat them. What I wrote above was not a "other stuff" argument", as there is nothing wrong or improper about pointing out popular-but-BLP-violating keywords that are not protected by a redirect's NPOV-exemption. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

People don't believe his name is "Nobama," that is completely unrelated to this. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point, which you appear to be unable or unwilling to respond to. Whether it is a slur of a moniker or a slur or an accusation of a crime, it is in the same WP:BLP-violating territory. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You assert, Tarc, that some line is being crossed. Show me evidence of this line that doesn't rely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, please. I submit, rather, that the line is simply the demarcation between what policy says and the outcome that you would prefer. I'm willing to be proven wrong--show me this line. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The line crossed is implying someone is a terrorist when they actually have not been convicted or even formally accused of such. That is about as clear as I can possibly make myself here, and if that is not good enough for you, then ask someone else. Tarc (talk) 12:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Quite simple really.. WP:RFD#Neutrality of redirects. Since some media portrayed it as a terrorist attack, people will be using this as a search term, and our duty is to the readers, to help them find information. It's a useful redirect and serves its purpose. -- œ^™ 10:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sh2-271

• Sh2-271 → Flame Nebula (links to redirect) (stats) 

Incorrect catalog number for the target object. The number in question is assigned to a different object that currently does not appear to have a Wikipedia article.[2] Due to the exacting nature of the catalog number, this incorrect entry is likely to cause confusion by misdirecting anyone looking for the object associated with the number or who mistakenly believes the number is associated with the Flame Nebula. --Allen3 ^talk 18:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WPT:MoSDab

[edit] Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood

• Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood → Antisemitic canard (links to redirect) (stats) 

Very unlikely search term. It seems that the redirect was created after the deletion of the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Controversies related to prevalence of Jews in leadership roles in Hollywood, but it is not a useful redirect. The topic is not even mentioned in the target article, Antisemitic canard.  Sandstein  15:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

A little unlikely, indeed. Debresser (talk) 16:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why unlikeliness is a problem, given that *someone* used this term to create an article. Also, I was hoping someone would add the old topic to the target article. User:Fences and Windows did a lot of good research about the topic in the deletion discussion, which no one has used. Another possibility is to redirect to another page. --AFriedman (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There was an article at that title (among others) because the author attempted to find a NPOV title for the topic, but nobody will enter that into the search box. A likelier search term would be "Jews run Hollywood", or similar, but that might not be an appropriate redirect exactly for NPOV reasons, and it would also require that this topic is covered at the target article.  Sandstein  22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with adding a redirect to "Jews run hollywood"? Also, to me the solution is simple--keep the redirect and cover the topic at the target article. Would that solution be ok by you? --AFriedman (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No, even then it would not be a likely search term and hence a useless redirect.  Sandstein  06:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete since it fails WP:RCAT. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If we added the topic to the target article, it would meet the redirect criteria of "merge" --AFriedman (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This is not a useful searching or linking term for anything other than the content that was formerly here - even then, it is debatable - and the AfD is clear enough that we don't want the content that was formerly here, so this cannot be useful at all. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Convinced by previous comment. I originally created the redirect because the article had some vehement defenders, but it seems like this rationale is no longer applicable. --AFriedman (talk) 02:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] World of Warcraft non-notable locations

• Kezan → Warcraft (series) (links to redirect) (stats) 
• Nagrand → Warcraft (series) (links to redirect) (stats) 
• Wintergrasp Lake → Warcraft (series) (links to redirect) (stats) 
• Valgarde → Warcraft (series) (links to redirect) (stats) 

Misleading redirect, this is a minor location in the setting of a single game in a series. Under current notability guidelines the location will never be covered in the target article, or in Wikipedia, thus we should not send users hunting for the information by sending them along a string of redirects that will never lead to the information. Taelus (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, merging similar RfDs to avoid the cut+paste spamming of comments in each different redirect which has happened in the past. Feel free to split them again if you disagree with their merging. --Taelus (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as per previous precedents of other minor gaming locations. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:How THIS IS TO to start a page

• Wikipedia:How THIS IS TO to start a page → Help:Starting a new page (links to redirect) (stats) 

Was twice nominated for speedy deletion - first as a nonsensical title, and secondly as housekeeping. I couldn't accept either argument for speedy deletion, but this is certainly a useless redirect. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as implausible search term. --Taelus (talk) 13:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as implausible. Tavix |  Talk  23:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel

• Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel → Microsoft (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete per Reasons for deletion clause 4: There is no sense in redirecting Virtual CD-ROM Control Panel to Microsoft, as Microsoft article neither contains any information on this subject nor present and evidence of notability for the subject of redirection. Fleet Command (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep The reference says: "The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange.". Apple to Orange does not make sense. Redirecting the name of a Microsoft product to the Microsoft article does make sense. --Hm2k (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

1. It only makes sense when Microsoft article has information about said product, not always. Otherwise, no, it is just a weasel wikilink: A wikilink that gives the illusion of importance to one subject without providing notability evidences.
2. Oh, and by the way, you are the original creator of this redirect.

Fleet Command (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No point in redirecting to an article that has no useful information about the topic. This annoys readers.  Sandstein  06:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 8

[edit] Poccnr

• Poccnr → Russia (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete. It seems like a poor attempt at a representation of the Cyrillic Россия (local name for Russia) using the Latin alphabet. Aside from the fact that this redirect makes no sense, Россия already redirects to Russia (as local names for most other countries do), so there is no need for a silly redirect like "Poccnr". GSMR (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep people always write poor latinized versions of Cyrillic words, since this is a direct latin letter substitution of the native cyrillic form, I think it's an acceptable redirect. Afterall, we do think CCCP is an acceptable redirect to have, don't we? 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't believe CCCP should exist either, but in the case of CCCP the characters actually do look identical to their Cyrillic counterparts. "n" and "r" (especially since they're lower case) look nothing like и and я. Hey, the local name for Japan (日本) kind of looks like B†, so why not redirect that to Japan? GSMR (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
    • How many times have you seen someone try to type Japanese, by imitating its written form, on a latin keyboard (as opposed to pronounciation) ? But people always seem to try it with Cyrillic. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
      • Then it should be POCCNR, which actually resembles Россия. Poccnr (because of the last two letters) does not. GSMR (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia will automagically catch the uppercase form using a lowercase redirect. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom, agree with GSMR. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This seems like a reasonable attempt at a "faux cyrillic" search, it may well be typed by searchers with latin keyboards (e.g., most English speakers), and it harms nothing by existing. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Poccnr & http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=poccnr - these ref shows tht therzz no harm in leaving this redirect . .
  • Yes, because UrbanDictionary is such a reliable source... and that TFD entry happens to be a mirror of Wikipedia... GSMR (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Immaculate conception seminary

• Immaculate conception seminary → Immaculate Conception Seminary School of Theology (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete: the page this redirects to is about a school in New Jersey, but all the pages that link to the redirect are talking about a seminary in New York. The one in New York does not have an article, as far as I can tell. Auntof6 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems like a reasonable search term for the target. If there are erroneous links to it, then clean those up; theya ren't reason enough for deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• • The other links aren't erroneous; they're for a different institution called simply "Immaculate Conception Seminary". How about changing this redirect to a dab page that lists both? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dab seems best option. Boleyn2 (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2008 Soccer Championship

[edit] Aerial combat engagements between cyprus and turkey

• Aerial combat engagements between cyprus and turkey → Aerial combat engagements between Cyprus and Turkey (links to redirect) (stats) 

Moving this here from AfD, where it was nominated for deletion by Socrates2008 (talk). The rationale was "Pointless redirection of a long, orphaned article name." I am neutral. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vichy liberalism

• Vichy liberalism → Social liberalism (links to redirect) (stats) 

Moving this here from AfD, where it was originally sent by The Four Deuces (talk · contribs). Rationale was "The term was used by a writer in an article. It does not refer to liberals in the Vichy Republic but is a sarcastic reference to American liberals. Not notable." I am neutral. Olaf Davis (talk) 09:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep If anyone searches for the term, it makes sense to just use the redirect. Redirects are not the same as articles -- all they are is road maps which say "detour" hence they do not need any notability at all. The usual reason for objecting to a redirect is where there is an actual articl being bypassed. Collect (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The term was used by LK Samuels in an article The Arrogant Self-Righteousness of Vichy Liberalism at LewRockwell.com. There he states:

Except for the "classical liberals" who still adhered to the traditions of John Locke and Thomas Jefferson, most modern liberals embraced the redistribution of wealth, larger government agencies, and a bureaucratic society dependent on the largesse of the political system. They have legislated womb-to-tomb economic policies reminiscent of 1930s–40s national socialism in Europe, embodied in the Vichy regime in France – hence my term "Vichy liberalism."[3] (my emphasis)

The suggestion that someone would search for the term is unbelievable. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The term is an OR coinage not as yet used by anyone other than the creator. The objection to this redirect is not that an article is being bypassed, rather that the concept of "Vichy liberalism" (whether equatable to Social liberalism or not) does not exist, certainly not to Wikipedia standards. Declan Clam (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Miss World 2011

• Miss World 2011 → Miss World (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete the "Miss World 2011" article. The event is too far away in the future to have some verified facts included, other than the assumption that it will take place in 2011. Joey80 (talk) 06:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment it's a redirect, it's not an article, what facts do you need, aside from a not particularly bold assumption that it will happen? 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for now as a misleading redirect. There is no information in the target article, and it is too early for there to be any available information. The page can be recreated as its own article when there is information available. However, for now, there is no reason to mislead users into assuming that such information is available as they are redirected to an article to look for it. --Taelus (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment this actually has a content before. But the contents have been a subject of contention since it is mostly based on an editor's personal opinion, crystal balling and the lack of any verifiable info (i.e. please refer to the talk page). Because of this, I was initially planning to propose it for deletion, but another user decided to just delete all its contents and use a redirect. Joey80 (talk) 02:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete i second Taelus . let one be created when it happen's & this happening is too far & this redirect is misleading .

[edit] Miss International 1982

• Miss International 1982 → Christie Claridge (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete the "Miss International 1982" page. The redirect goes to the person, the winner of the said event but the "Christie Claridge" article does not contain extensive info about the event. The "Miss International 1982" is currently linked via the "Miss International" template. However, no attempt has been currently made to write about the actual event since by looking at the template (and the fact that the link is colored blue instead of red when the article is non-existing), one might be led to the assumption that the 1982 article is already in existence and complete. Joey80 (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as she is Miss Int'l '82 and thus what you would look for when typing it in, for most people. (The winner, not the competition is what most people want) 65.94.252.195 (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "The winner, not the competition is what most people want". Really? Is there a basis for this assumption? I don't like to compare, but you think it will be better if we just delete all the edition articles and then directly link these to the winners? So beyond the beauty pageant, you would like the search for "Eurovision 2008" to go directly to the winner instead of the event? Then if that is the case, then you should have typed "Eurovision 2008 winner". So in this case, the one that should link to the winner is "Miss International 1982 winner". Even though she is Miss International 1982, there is a Miss International 1982 event. And in case you're not aware, that event being held is actually the reason why she is Miss International 1982. Joey80 (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever tried something called Google? IT does wonders in seeing what people think of as "Miss France 1998", for example [4] or how about "Miss Russia 2005"? [5] - this is the way people write things. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and add a disambiguation link to the top of the target article. I'll be bold and do this in advance, if this closes as delete please could the closing admin also revert my disambig from redirect, thank you. --Taelus (talk) 13:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ivan Grabovac

• Ivan Grabovac → Ante Gotovina (links to redirect) (stats) 

deletion. No mention on article to explain why redirect exists, Google search couldn't confirm Boleyn2 (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I proposed this to Boleyn earlier, after we had a disagreement on the content. This is a personal name that doesn't actually seem to be reliably attributable to Ante Gotovina. His alias is reportedly "Andrija Grabovac", not Ivan. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as misleading redirect, no content on the topic available in the target article. --Taelus (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 7

[edit] Thomas goggin

• Thomas goggin → Thomas Goggin (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. While redirects such as this one may be unnecessary, deleting them is even less necessary. They don't do any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep it';s definitely necessary, I never bother capitalising either letter of names I tpye in the search box and neither do many people.--Patton123 (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: if you don't capitalize in the search box you will still find the correctly capitalized article in the results. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Unless WP adopts a policy forbidding such - there are a lot of them. Collect (talk) 11:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Like Jezhotwells said. There is no need for capitalization when you use search box.  Ilyushka88  talk  17:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Utterly unnecessary. True, no harm in leaving it, but the whole point of the RfD process is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirects from alternate capitalizations do no harm and may do good. Moreover, not everyone arrives at an article through Wikipedia's search box, so arguments that rely on it "fixing" searches miss the mark. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Agüeira

• Agüeira → Angueira (links to redirect) (stats) 

Agüeira is the name of a river in Galicia, Spain, no reason to redirect it to a Portuguese village Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• In light of a lack of an article of the aforementioned Spanish river, keep as a plausible misspelling of the name of the Portuguese village (lack of diacritics). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mad at the world (disambiguation)

• Mad at the world (disambiguation) → Mad at the World (disambiguation) (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. While redirects such as this one may be unnecessary, deleting them is even less necessary. They don't do any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep As noted above, WP has no policy that I know of opposing such redirects. There are enough misleading ones to remove that deleting this is insignificant. Collect (talk) 11:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirects from alternate capitalizations do no harm and may do good. Moreover, not everyone arrives at an article through Wikipedia's search box, so arguments that rely on it "fixing" searches miss the mark. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jam hot

• Jam hot → Jam Hot (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't mind the deletion, I don't even recall what circumstances led to my creation of the redirect in the first place. -- Atama頭 19:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep it';s definitely necessary, I never bother capitalising either letter of names I tpye in the search box and neither do many people.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Patton123 (talk • contribs)
• Delete Capitalization in search-box does not not matter. Searching for List of UniversitiEs and colLeges In GuangXi takes me to List of universities and colleges in Guangxi, but linking with wrong capitalization doesn't. In my opinion this should be deleted though. If someone links to the article, they should see themselves if the link works.  Ilyushka88  talk  22:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly unnecessary. True, no harm in leaving it, but the whole point of the RfD process is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirects from alternate capitalizations do no harm and may do good. Moreover, not everyone arrives at an article through Wikipedia's search box, so arguments that rely on it "fixing" searches miss the mark. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as WP:RFD#KEEP actually lists alternate capitalisation as a reason to keep a redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Good old boat magazine

• Good old boat magazine → Good Old Boat magazine (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unnecessary redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. While redirects such as this one may be unnecessary, deleting them is even less necessary. They don't do any harm. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - it's what's known as an "implausible" redirect. The value of the article itself is highly questionable in any case. Deb (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, utterly unnecessary. True, no harm in leaving it, but the whole point of the RfD process is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Redirects from alternate capitalizations do no harm and may do good. Moreover, not everyone arrives at an article through Wikipedia's search box, so arguments that rely on it "fixing" searches miss the mark. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in Australia

• List of fatal, unprovoked shark attacks in Australia → Shark attacks in Australia (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unlikely redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Siratal Saif International

• Siratal Saif International → Siratal Saif (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unnecessary redirect, anyone typing in first two words will find article Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree. The name Siratal Saif International sounds like the organization that teaches it and Siratal Saif is the actual art itself. I don't see a need for article about organization to be directed to the article. --Vishnu2011 (talk) 18:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2009–10 Coupe de France 5th through 7th Rounds

• 2009–10 Coupe de France 5th through 7th Rounds → 2009–10 Coupe de France 5th through 6th Rounds (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unlikely redirect Jezhotwells (talk) 14:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't create page. Rounds 1 through 6 usually feature only amateur and semi-professional clubs. The seventh round is when the tournament gets professional. That's why it's on the main page. Joao10Siamun (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Daily fail

• Daily fail → Daily Mail (links to redirect) (stats) 

Redirect actually a sarcastic nickname for the paper NellieBly (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Redirects from insulting nicknames should be avoided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Sarcasm ill-suits redirects. I suggest the "Daily Heil" redirect also be removed for the same reason. Collect (talk) 11:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There should not be insulting/sarcastic redirects in Wikipedia. I don't think anyone searches for Daily fail if they want to see article about Daily Mail.  Ilyushka88  talk  15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 6

[edit] F.I.R.-Fairyland in Reality (F.I.R. album)

• F.I.R.-Fairyland in Reality (F.I.R. album) → F.I.R.-Fairyland in Reality (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete. Redirect is left over from a page move made because the article name was unnecessarily disambiguated. The old name is not a likely search argument, and I have cleaned up all links that used the redirect. TJRC (talk) 20:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gorka José Unda Velasco

• Gorka José Unda Velasco → Real Madrid C.F. (links to redirect) (stats) 

A non-notable player who plays for the Real Madrid's third team (Real Madrid C). This article should have been deleted in the first place instead of made into a redirect. Geregen2 (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 81 points

• 81 points → Kobe Bryant#Playoff disappointments (2004–07) (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete. Redirect has nothing to do with the linked article except the number of points that Kobe Bryant scored in one game. I don't believe it belongs. Manway (talk) 02:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - there are too many meanings of the phrase (OBTW - List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant#Career-highs would put this one redirect into context, but "81 points" can mean different things in different sports, fields, etc.). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Useless redirect. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Otherwise we'll need a redirect for 0 to 9999 for every possible point score. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] الشيعه

• الشيعه → Shia Islam (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete. Improperly applied PROD tag says the following: "Not Encyclopedia. Translated text =

Shia: "They are a group of people consider themselves Muslims, and Ncio by Abdullah bin Saba, a Jew from Yemen, have extremist ideas sanctification Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him, and this group was the most dangerous to Islam than the Jews and the Christians themselves, they seek every effort to destroy Islam, They are Aimiton represent Islam. The spread of this community, mainly in Iran and Iraq, and southern Lebanon and minorities in Bahrain, Kuwait and eastern Saudi Arabia and a minority in Syria, called `Alawis or Alnasirien. Not permissible for a Muslim marriage, especially of the Alawite sect, or who Nusayris Iolhon Ali bin Abi Talib, may Allah be pleased with him."

Since prods are for articles only, I'm bringing this redirect here for deletion discussion. I do not see any utility whatsoever for this redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

When I added the prod it was an article, not a redirect. It got edited into a redirect somwhere between me starting the prod and finishing it w/o me ever getting an edit conflict message. When i see something in another language, before i tag it for translation I try to run it through a basic translator myself, to see if it is anything... off-putting. This seemed off-putting.Vinithehat (talk) 01:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:Use English. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as this is Arabic for "Shia" (according to GoogleTranslate) so is a perfectly correct redirect from the original language. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Can we keep with protection as there wont be further need to for editing and the original text that was attached to this article seemed a bit disparaging?Vinithehat (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Dore

• Battle of Dore → Dore (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete. The recent AfD found a strong consensus that there was no evidence of a Battle of Dore, and the outcome was that the article was deleted. However, the admin deleting it recreated the page as a redirect to Dore, explaining here that "An entry that makes the creation of duplicate articles less likely by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term. Evidently somebody thought there was a Battle of Dore because there is a memorial stone in the village. By creating the redirect, we prevent others from making the same mistake, and we help people who also think there was a battle to find the relevant information." But this is not a misnomer, and there is no evidence of any kind of such a battle. The "memorial stone in the village" makes no claim of one. As stated at the 2nd para of this page, "Turning redirects into fleshed-out encyclopedic articles is wholly encouraged at Wikipedia". I see no difference between Battle of Dore and Synod of Dore, Palace of Dore, Bishop of Dore... they are all fictional and by existing can only mislead and (in the first case) encourage the recreation of an article we have decided to delete. Moonraker2 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Agree. Seems an eccentric action on the part of the admin. This was all sorted at AfD. There is no Battle of Dore, either in history or in conjecture; it was simply fancy or misunderstanding on the part of the original article's creator. Giving the notion any sort of credence on wikipedia flies in the face of this. Declan Clam (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 5

[edit] Wheel of Fortune Wheel Configuration

• Wheel of Fortune Wheel Configuration → Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) (links to redirect) (stats) 

Same as below. The article on the Wheel's configuration was removed. I'm sure JTRH wants to get rid of this too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel of Fortune (The wheel's configuration)

• Wheel of Fortune (The wheel's configuration) → Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) (links to redirect) (stats) 

Same as below. The article on the Wheel's configuration was removed. I'm sure JTRH wants to get rid of this too. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel of Fortune (List of puzzle categories)

• Wheel of Fortune (List of puzzle categories) → Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) (links to redirect) (stats) 

No such list exists at the target article; and it shouldn't since the list was consentually deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wheel of Fortune wheel configuration

• Wheel of Fortune wheel configuration → Wheel of Fortune (U.S. game show) (links to redirect) (stats) 

The wheel's configuration isn't mentioned in the article, and it shouldn't be because there would be no way to source it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an outdated link to a sub-article which I created and which was AfD'd quite some time ago. Rm away. JTRH (talk) 22:56, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:39, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] November 4

[edit] Google cache

• Google cache → Web cache (links to redirect) (stats) 

Suggest deletion unless anyone considers the Google cache to be notable and wants to fill in a stub. As raised on Talk:Web cache, the Google cache is not mentioned in that article, leading to confused readers (like me). It's also not really a web cache in the sense that that article defines it (automated things like Squid caches that are transparent to the user) - if anything it's a temporary variation on the web archive. Old Man of Storr (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Manuel Pérez Rodríguez

• Manuel Pérez Rodríguez → Manuel Pérez Rodrigo (links to redirect) (stats)
• Manuel Perez Rodriguez → Manuel Pérez Rodrigo (links to redirect) (stats)

Should be deleted. All the sources I could find refer to him as Rodrigo, not Rodriguez. There was a stray article that listed him as Rodriguez, then both Rodrigo and Rodriguez articles got merged into the Rodriguez one, creating a mess. I cut-n-paste-moved Rodriguez article back to Rodrigo, keeping the redirect for now. In the end only Rodrigo article should stay. Geregen2 (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Emily Booth (disambiguation)

• Emily Booth (disambiguation) → Emily Booth (links to redirect) (stats) 

I think this should be deleted, it does not redirect to a disambiguation page; there is only one article on WP on an Emily Booth. was PRODded and prod2ed before anon rv and made this a redirect to only target. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral weak keep as the editor who made the redirect from a dab page with only one blue link. Redundancy of a redirect is not a reason for deletion, but since there appears only one article named Emily Booth, with or without disambiguation, leaving the redirect as-is would not cause harm to Wikipedia as it simply redirects to the one article of that name, and should another Emily Booth merit a standalone article, a disambiguation page would then be worthwhile. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. True, leaving it would cause no harm to WP, but the whole purpose of the RfD is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete there is only one Emily Booth on Wikipedia, why disambiguate when there is no ambiguity? Declan Clam (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Phil Boyer (disambiguation)

• Phil Boyer (disambiguation) → Phil Boyer (links to redirect) (stats) 

I think this should be deleted, it does not redirect to a disambiguation page, so could cause confusion. Was PRODded before anon rv and made this a redirect to only target. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Neutral weak keep as the editor who made the redirect from a dab page with only one blue link. Redundancy of a redirect is not a reason for deletion, but since there appears only one article named Phil Boyer, with or without disambiguation, leaving the redirect as-is would not cause harm to Wikipedia as it simply redirects to the one article of that name, and should another Phil Boyer merit a standalone article, a disambiguation page would then be worthwhile.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. True, leaving it would cause no harm to WP, but the whole purpose of the RfD is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] David Broome (disambiguation)

• David Broome (disambiguation) → David Broome (links to redirect) (stats) 

I think this should be deleted, it does not redirect to a disambiguation page, so could cause confusion. Was PRODded before anon rv and made this a redirect to only target. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment as the one who removed the prod tag, I must state that at the time I saw the page, it was formatted as a dab page that had only one entry. Thus it was a malformed redirect - I simply applied WP:REDIRECT to correct the format... and prods do not apply to redirects. On this one I am neutral as to the issue of deletion. Redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect, but if one claims that this is simply housecleaning, it would make sense. Also, an argument could be made that since this has significant edit history, that WP:AfD of a more viable (but recent) version of the dab page would be more appropriate. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. "Housecleaning" is the whole purpose of the RfD process. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)