Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 1

< January 31

February 2 >

February 1

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on February 1, 2008

Oh Snap → Alcester Grammar School

The result of the debate was speedy deleted as vandalism. VegaDark (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure nonsense and vandalism. --EvilFred (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kate Kennedy Klub → Kate Kennedy Club

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...Club" is the genuine name, redirect appears to exist only to give the initials "KKK". Already deleted from KKK_(disambiguation) —Sladen (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Appears to exist only as an attack -- no non-Wikipedia Google hits for this name. --Carnildo (talk) 04:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with the target article, Kate Kennedy Club. It's clearly non-notable - a "secret society" limited to one university, with less than a hundred unique ghits? Come on. Even if something is technically a century old, WP:NFT still applies. --Hyperbole (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment obviously I raised this so am advocating Delete for the redirect. However, I believe the article itself should stay (eg. several articles on BBC News; St. Andrews being the University chosen by Prince William). —Sladen (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redireect, but not article. Appears to only exist as an attack. Bart133 ^{(t) (c)} 19:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a backhanded attempt at violating policy on statements about organizations. Only the redirect can be discussed here. If User:Hyperbole wants the article deleted it needs to be nominated at AfD.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 00:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:PROMINENCE → Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight

The result of the debate was No consensus (defaults to keep). There is clearly no consensus and neither side has raised policy or guideline arguments that clearly trump the other sides arguments. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect created by ScienceApologist to support his arguments at Talk:Rue and Talk:Deadly nightshade. This is an underhanded means to reinforce one's viewpoint. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Previously incorrectly nominated at WP:MFD. Before it was speedily closed, a discussion occured at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:PROMINENCE. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Applicable and valid redirect, since this plays a major role in science and medical articles, to ensure we keep "junk science", "fake science", or "pseudoscience" on a tight leash, and to prevent the spread of nonsense and disinformation. Lawrence § t/e 15:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note For some reason, Cobaltbluetony decided to not notify the creator of the redirect. This is considered common basic courtesy. I've taken care of it since he didn't for some reason, here. Lawrence § t/e 15:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Refutation. I ran into an edit conflict with your informing the creator of this redirect while trying to notify him. I am working from home on a dial-up connection and an old, memory-challenged laptop. Your tone implies I "decided" to be sneaky. Please assume good faith. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is another redirect, WP:UNDUE that points to the same place. Why promulgate extra shortcuts. On the other hand, why nominate a content opponent's favorite redirect for deletion? Why seek to intensify the conflict? Jehochman^Talk 15:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the section is about undue weight, not prominence. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Why seek to intensify the conflict?"

Playin' to Win. Lawrence § t/e 15:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep again. What harm does it do? ScienceApologist (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What use does it serve? Resolute 18:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The same use all redirects serve. Why respond to my question with another question? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Redirects are cheap. How does this emphasize a viewpoint? PouponOnToast (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, more of the same WP:POINT stuff these edit-warriors from both sides keep doing, one attacks, and the other retaliates. Can you spell escalation? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a misleading redirect used to try to give weight to one user's misinterpretation of policy. Might as well be renamed to WP:DELETEHOMEOPATHY. --Itub (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Itub. This redirect was created as an attempt to legitimize POV pushing. Reso lute 18:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this makes a valid point. Relata refero (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bad faith rationale, gaming, and point-making by multiple editors here in an effort to remove a redirect to existing policy. This bullshit really has to stop. --Ronz (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems more like a rhetorical device than a helpful redirect. WP:UNDUE works fine and is sensible for redirecting to Undue Weight. Dlabtot (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not clear what policy arguments would allow WP:UNDUE to exist that would not allow WP:PROMINENCE to exist as well. (The policy is the policy). If SA had not used this redirect in a current hot-topic discussion this redirect might have gone unnoticed for a long time. EdJohnston (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Didn't I vote on this before? Perhaps easier reference will promote understanding. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Undue weight is not identical with prominence. One is a if A not B, and the other is an if B not A. One is the set, the other is the universe outside the set. They are not the same thing. I'm afraid this creation is going to be used as part of a long war against undue weight.Wjhonson (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same reasoning applies to WP:WEIGHT. Avb 02:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The word "prominence" does not intuitively refer to "undue weight"; WP shortcuts should not exist for the benefit of one user. --Hyperbole (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Prominence" could mean a number of things and there's no need for a new shortcut. Best regards Rhanyeia ♥♫ 15:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment. I am not on either side of the homeopathy-related articles' debates. However, I am not in favor of individual users creating redirects without a much wider community concensus while they are editing in favor of a particular opinion and in doing so, their altered use of terminology suggests community support of their individual interpretation of community concensus. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's easy -- who doesn't want to use this redirect, doesn't. The rest do. It's a wiki. Not that deleting the redirect will prevent this use - just click on WP:PROMINENCE. QED. WP:POINT? Avb 02:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That prominence and undue weight do not mean the same thing, they do not have the same connotation.Wjhonson (talk) 02:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. For me "prominence" and "weight" converge to a large degree in the narrow context of WP:undue weight. Obviously YMMV. The way I see it, WP editors are expected to make sure that WP content reflects the prominence of specific info as observed in the various sources. Weight is not a vague concept; it can be quantified quite reasonably by editors weighing the prominence of the various sources followed by assessing the prominence the sources give to specific info, in terms of placement, number of words, strength of expression, etc. Avb 14:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since when is directing editors to UNDUE improper? -- Fyslee / talk 07:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The redirect itself is without bias, meaning (according to my dictionary) "Relative importance", and as such seems an appropriate redirect. Of course, I consider prominence a pain to spell, so I imagine it is unlikely to see heavy usage, however that does not effect this discussion. LinaMishima (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why not WP:SIGNIFICANCE, WP:TINY, WP:THRESHOLD, WP:CITSIG seriously. If the criteria is simple because someones likes it than any of these would be ok. Anthon01 (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the section in question does not talk of a threshold, THRESHOLD would be inappropriate. CITSIG has no immediate meaning to myself. TINY could well have quite different meanings and uses (WP:STUB, perhaps). SIGNIFICANCE might actually make a good redirect, of course. If you find the redirect helpful, and the meaning is implicit and easily understood from the redirect name, and the choice of name does not favour a limited reading, I see no issue. LinaMishima (talk) 14:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - CITSIG =Citation significant, which makes it clear that its citation-related and not article-related as WP:NOTABILITY is. Perhap WP:CITNOTE might be better in that regard. WP:TINY could signify a situation where a V RS represents too small a minority to justify inclusion. THRESHOLD could signify a question as to whether a RS has reached the threshold necessary to not be consider a WP:TINY. SIGNIFICANCE would mean that the RS has met that threshold. My point was to question how many ways should we express the underlining WP:UNDUE policy. But you comments imply that if it fits, add it. The only question I have is whether PROMINENCE could be better used somewhere else. Thanks. Anthon01 (talk) 14:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does WP:UNDUE = WP:WEIGHT? Or are they different aspects used to judge a RS's merits for inclusion. Anthon01 (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wjhonson. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As in the prior discussion, I see no relevant deletion criteria presented, only a dislike for the content. Furthermore, to quote from the relevant section:
Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.
If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents
(my bolding). I see two instances wherein this can refer to points within WP:UNDUE section... — Scientizzle 01:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Create a wikipedia page → Wikipedia:Your first article

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Help:Starting a new page via a soft-redirect. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-name space redirect, surely it shouldn't exist?? Solumeiras (talk) 11:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, but I'd like to ask a question of you: If anyone would need a cross-namespace redirect, wouldn't it be someone looking for how to create their first article? If this helps out new people, it should at least be considered for keep.--UsaSatsui (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is there a rule against cross-name space redirects? I created this redirect because a number of new users have mistakenly created a page here which have been deleted repeatedly. A redirect to the current page helps out newbies on the basics of how to create articles which is way better than a blank page. --Hdt83 ^Chat 23:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cross-namespace redirects are generally discouraged. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cross-namespace redirects are generally discouraged, but WP:R#KEEP says that we should avoid deleting redirects if they aid searches or if they are useful. The log from the page shows that users do enter create a wikipedia page into the search box and that it would be helpful to redirect these users to WP:YFA. WODUP 00:57, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with a soft redirect, most likely a copy of Create an article. At any rate, Create an article should be the same as Create a wikipedia page. --Hyperbole (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do like the idea of making it a protected soft redirect; this makes it abundantly clear that the users are being redirected to a page that can help them, but right now, I don't know whether Help:Starting a new page, Wikipedia:Your first article, or something else would be the best target. WODUP 00:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, this is a good idea, and there's precedent --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. It makes absolute sense in this case, particularly as can be seen from the fallout in history log. —Sladen (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Help:Starting a new page. CNRs are generaly discouraged, but exceptions exist when they undoubtedly benefit the project. In this case, the term "Create a Wikipedia page" can't possibly be used outside Wikipedia, and we all know that users typing this in actually want to create an article, or at least understand the process. If this CNR actually helps users create new articles and join our community, then it's useful. So the redirect can exist... and please don't call me Shirley. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Semiotic triangle → Triangle of reference

The result of the debate was Kept. This isn't really a case for RFD. As the term is used in the target article, it makes sense to redirect to there lacking a specific article. If there is a desire to have an article instead of a redirect, that can be done without deleting the redirect. If the concern is the original deletion of the article prior to the redirect's creation, that is outside the scope of RFD and should be addressed with the deleting admin or deletion review. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been redirected to Triangle of reference. Triangle of reference is at best only a stub, whereas the Semiotic Triangle page contained a lot of interesting material. I had it bookmarked. However NONE of the information that was so useful for me on the Semiotic Triangle page is on the Triangle of Reference page and the information that is now available is at best "thin". I cannot find HOW to access the Redirect page in order to follow the step pof putting the RfD tag at the top of it. The nmoral seems to be that if you find something good on Wiki WebCite it fast before it gets deleted :(

LookingGlass (talk) 13:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this nomination was malformed. The section header was incorrect, the link to the target was redlinked, and the nomination tag was on the target. I have removed the nomination from the target and added it to the redirect and corrected the formatting above. I have no opinion on the nomination.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whatever Doug did, worked. I suspect that LookingGlass's concerns have been addressed, and that he may want to withdraw this nomination. --Hyperbole (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Doug, I do try, but the "geeky" nature of this space demands too much. I really could not figure out how else to post here. I wanted to draw people's attention to an unfortunate loss. The idea of a "banned user" being gagged is awful. If the article had veracity, then it should remain. If not then not. Simple. Why delete knowledge simnply because it comes from an "unclean" source? LookingGlass (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Restore original page (assuming something was deleted). Searching the web, I found a reference "Speaking of Wikiparanoia, Slrubenstein deletes a nicely illustrated little article on the Semiotic Triangle by what I knew to be an extremely friendly and modest editor who contacted me one or twice asking for references to the literature." This seems to indicate that was originally something substantial on the page, which has gone. Perhaps that could be reviewed before further discussion of delete/redirect should take page (it can be renominated if that is required). —Sladen (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs at WP:DRV. The deleting admin's reason is here. –Pomte 06:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

. . . and I think this admin's judgement should be called to account. It is a "cut your nose off to spite your face" logic which seems to fly in the face of freedom of some basic "rights". After all, even category "A" prisoners have the right to publish as long as the article is lawful (non-inflamatory etc)! IMnHeO LookingGlass (talk) 19:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

User:LookingGlass, why don't you withdraw the nomination and I'll help you out with discussing this matter with the deleting admin, I'll also explain navigating back to redirect pages, and maybe I'll even see if I can help you get Deletion Review to perform a temporary undelete so we can find out whether there is material worth salvaging - if policy allows that, I've never run into the issue of banned users creating articles before and I have no knowledge of the notability of this topic, so we'll have to see about it, but I'll give you a hand. I'll follow up with you on your talk page. Please just say "nomination withdrawn" and sign, if you agree. If the article ends up getting created/recreated, there will be no reason to RfD anything. Let me know. --Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 06:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Well, now someone has deleted it, even though the time hadn't run. So withdrawing the nomination has no effect and is moot.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC) duh! Even I'm getting confused and I was the one who originally sorted this out. Somewhere in discussing this with the nominator I called it Semiotic Triangle with a capital "T", which is the earlier deleted article. We're still discussing, and I'm still suggesting the nominator withdraw the nomination.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.