Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 16

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 16, 2011

Sherrod DeHippo

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted as WP:G10 by Causa sui NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probable attack page. the title of the redirect is a reference to Encyclopedia Dramatica's founder, Sherrod DeGrippo and "DeHippo" could be considered derogatory -badmachine 17:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, leaning towards delete. It seems that this is a derogatory name for DeGrippo, however it is seemingly used in a few other places around the internet. and so it's use here is not novel and I don't think that this is an attack page - it's certainly not speedy deletable as one. The question is whether the uses elsewhere make this a useful search term or not (as this is a derogatory name for a living person, I don't think we can justify keeping it only on grounds of 'does no harm'). My gut feeling is that it possibly isn't useful enough (it's too new to get meaningful stats), but this feeling is not currently strong enough to cast a firm opinion either way. Also note I've notified the creator of the redirect of this discussion as the nominator did not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - because of the role of Encyclopedia Dramatica I can't get upset about some gentle lampooning of its founder! However, the references on the Web are relatively few and, what is pivotal to me, is that formulation is not used in the target so a searcher is likely to be left confused. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deleted and salted as an attack page. Was previously speedied by Ultraexactzz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) on 2011-04-21. causa sui (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Equidistance

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy closed - transferred to Wikipedia:Requested moves#August 17, 2011. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to cause trouble here, since this has gone to PROD and RfD before, recently, and the trouble is mostly my doing. I suggest now a reversal of the redirect: Under WP:NOUN (a subsec of WP:TITLE) we prefer nouns as titles, and Equidistant is an adjective. I bring this to RfD genuinely for discussion, since I can see strong arguments for keeping it as it stands, because of external links and so forth, but can also see that really it should be under the nominative Equidistance, and of course the lead would need to be changed, but really that is just a syntactic change not one that changes its meaning. Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Si Trew (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind the quibble at all, I deliberately brought it to RfD first because of the previous discussions, I didn't want to seem to be subverting others' opinions, but if it is better dealt with at RM then I am happy to take it there (or for someone else e.g. Bridgeplayer to do so) and perhaps this should be speedy close then, with the reason being "transferred to WP:RM" or something like that?
For completeness, the AfD is here.
Si Trew (talk) 08:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

John Cena vs. The Rock

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep --Taelus (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a needed redirect at all. - Sir Pawridge talk contribs 10:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. People might or might not know when/where it's taking place, or they might have forgotten (I do that sort of thing all the time, and I know I'm not the only one). The point of redirects is to make it easier for people to find the article they are looking for, so redundancy is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Nederlandse Grootloge der Gemengde Vrijmetsalerij

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete, without prejudice to recreation should relevant information that is noteworthy become available somewhere. --Taelus (talk) 15:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the organization is not mentioned in the article it redirects to, and is in a foreign title not likely to be searched on English Wikipedia. MSJapan (talk) 07:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per nom. My first instinct was to suggest re-naming this redirect to its anglicized name (which is the more likely search term): the "Netherlands Grand Lodge of Co-Masonry". However, that does not resolve the issue of it being a redirect to an article that does not even mention it (under any version of the name). The subject appears to be a very small, and not very notable co-ed fraternal organization (with only 6 local chapters... compared to the 162 lodges under the more notable "Grand Orient of the Netherlands"). I can not find reliable sources that mention it (either by the Dutch name or the Anglicized version). As such, I doubt whether it should be mentioned at the target article (Per WP:UNDUE). It exists, it falls under the broad definition of "Continental" style Freemasonry, and that is about all you can say for it. Wikipedia is not a directory. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of Masonic Grand Lodges#Europe and merge a mention to the table. This was originally an article here, that was redirected, by the nominator some 3 years ago. So far as I can see no content was merged, and the redirect was subsequently retargetted. I am not sure why this body is not in my suggested retarget, but I am happy to be advised by those with more knowledge of this field than I, but adding it to the table looks a helpful way forward. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some history: there was a spate of articles added on various GLs in the Continental tradition at one point. However, for many of them (including this one), there were no sources that showed anything beyond existence. The article itself was no more than a dicdef-type entry that we simply couldn't expand and that nobody was able to work on for lack of info. The List itself is a problem article; much of it is not notable. For many entries, we can only attest to existence, usually only proven by a link to said group's own website. With the sheer scope of that list (anything and everything that calls itself a Masonic Grand Lodge), I'm not surprised it's missing, or it might be under an Anglicized name. MSJapan (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that the "Netherlands Grand Lodge of Co-Masonry" could (and probably should) be listed in List of Masonic Grand Lodges (I note that the list does not yet include any of the Dutch Grand Lodges... even the notable ones). However, I don't think redirecting this title to that list resolves the basic problem here... it is still a non-notable organization that few will ever search for (and fewer still will search for under it's Dutch name... at least not on the English language Wikipedia). Blueboar (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is normal practice for non-notable organisations provided that we have something to say at the target. Even on the English language Wikipedia we include the native name of subjects as redirects because people come across them with that name and use it as a seek term. There is a scattering of hits on this name so, provided that we add a summary to the target, a redirect is potentially useful and policy-compliant. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "provided that we have something to say at the target"... that's the problem. There isn't much to say about this organization that would not give it undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is also not marked as {{R from foreign language}} or similar. It seems a pointless redirect to a very minor article, and as a search term (which is what we are here for) inconceivably unlikely. Delete on those premisses. Geen gezuur, A.U.B. Si Trew (talk) 12:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should add, of course I could have added in the template rather than grumble about it, but I tend to refrain from doing so once things go to discussion. There is BOLD, and too-BOLD, so I hope I did right by not just taking BOLD and doing so. For the sake of any clarification etc of a vested interest, I am not a Freemason neither I am against Freemasonry, and it is far more open now than it was a generation ago. We all have our clubs and affiliations, and it is just one of them. Si Trew (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_16&oldid=1039424659"