Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 24

December 24
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 24, 2007

Http://au.alpha.yahoo.com → Yahoo!
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 05:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Implausible typo Technobadger (talk) 16:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom  Pump me  up  01:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - redirect appears to be a hyperlink and fails WP:NOT. Macy's123 review me 15:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

South Africa luggage swap theory → Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC) This was proposed for deletion and though I normally do not convert PROD to RFD, this is an interesting case. The PROD nominator stated "Name invented by User:Phase4, a suspected sock puppet of former diplomat Patrick Haseldine the theory's only proponent, a theory for which he was fired from government." On the talk page it is mentioned that the term appears in The Scotsman with the caveat that this appears to be a case of circularity where it was first used here, picked up by The Scotsman then that use was cited as support for inclusion here in Wikipedia. Interesting. User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 13:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Interesting indeed. After spending some time looking at the situation, I don't think a judgment can be made without reviewing every edit ever made to Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103. The most interesting bit of this dispute is the apparent copying of text by The Scotsman from Wikipedia. The original research, if there is any, can be taken care of by citing sources, but bad journalism is a much trickier matter. --- RockMFR 05:43, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry for the late reply. I nominated the article/redirect for delete, because it is the sole invention of Patrick Haseldine (through his sockpuppet User:Phase4 — now blocked) in his ongoing campaign (almost 20 years now) for this conspiracy theory. I think Mr. Haseldine hopes that if he gives it a name and mentions it enough times in enough WP articles it will somehow become more real (or popular at least) and create the impression that it is a known common theory. Even if The Scotsman used these words, it does not make it a uniquely identifiable term. Google only results in hits for WP articles or pages referring to the WP article. This is not an alias or synonym for an existing unique concept... it doesn't even refer to an WP article, but to a section!!! I would submit that it constitutes OR as part of a larger POV campaign of one editor. — Deon Steyn (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree fully with comments above. 23:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe this should be filed under "how to distinguish reality from wikiality"? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 23:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is interesting from that perspective, but I don't think that warrants a page name. Redirect or not, it was employed as an article name in order to create a false impression that it is a known, named concept. The source of this invention should also be taken into account (a user blocked for conflict-of-interest edits and sock-puppetry). — Deon Steyn (talk) 20:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The redirect was created on 5 July 2007, seven days after The Scotsman newspaper of June 29, 2007 originally coined the term "South Africa luggage swap" theory (see http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=184&id=1014782007). South African editors Deon Steyn and Socrates2008 (who have their own agenda - see Talk:Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103) are therefore incorrect. South Africa luggage swap theory is not an invented term as they wrongly state: it was in fact coined by The Scotsman.PJHaseldine (talk) 11:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Interesting. That Scotsman article quoted verbatim from your Wiki article Alternative theories of the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 from that date, except for the sub-heading "SOUTH AFRICA LUGGAGE SWAP", which you obviously liked, and added in turn to Wikipedia thereafter.  Why was it necessary to create this redirection though, if the article they quoted already existed?  12:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's a much more interesting question: why are you and fellow South African editor, Deon Steyn, engaging in a concerted attack on South Africa luggage swap theory and other Wikipedia articles linked to it?PJHaseldine (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since it appears that the ultimate source of this term is in fact a Wikipedia article, then the term has no reliable source, and the redirect should be deleted. As an aside, I would welcome fewer ad-hominem comments in all the Lockerbie-related discussions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Though the exact chronology of comments may not be sorted out yet, per WP:NEO Wikipedia should use generally recognized terminology in its article titles. Where is the evidence that 'South Africa luggage swap theory' is a widely-understood term? One newspaper article doesn't quite seem to do it.  According to WP:NEO, To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. EdJohnston (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The ultimate source of the term "South Africa luggage swap theory" is The Scotsman article published on June 29, 2007. The term did not exist on Wikipedia prior to that date, and the redirect was not created until July 5, 2007.PJHaseldine (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that we know where it came from, delete for lack of notability. That exact phrase returns a mere 12 google hits, several of which do trace back to Wikipedia.  A redirect for such a little-used turn of phrase seems unnecessary and unimportant.  It gives the appearance of undue weight.  Rossami (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Shitler → Adolf Hitler
The result of the debate was delete.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not an appropriate entry meshach (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - There are at least 3 reliable sources mentioning Shitler as a nickname in some parody, but it's non-notable nonetheless. –Pomte 08:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete although I find it morbidly amusing, it's inappropriate. JuJube (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - If there's enough material about this expression to write a substantial article, then that article can be written, but it should not redirect to Hitler. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete useless redirect, no links to it and people are unlikely to type that in in search of meaningful educational content regarding Hitler :-)  Pump me  up  01:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - useless redirect. Macy's123 review me 15:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, rather amusing, but probably inappropriate. Lankiveil (talk) 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC).

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

Nine in the Afternoon (version 2) → Nine in the Afternoon
The result of the debate was Delete. After Midnight 0001 05:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC) Unnecessary; trivial edit history. --Qwerty (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy-delete as the non-controversial cleanup of a multi-step pagemove. Rossami (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Untitled Second Album (Panic! At The Disco → You Don't Have to Worry...
The result of the debate was speedily deleted under CSD R1 by User:East718. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary now; no incoming links; trivial edit history. Unlikely search target; misspelt; incomplete parenthesis. --Qwerty (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete implausible search term. –Pomte 08:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As long as the target page is kept (a point now in question), the redirect should also be kept because it documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Untitled 08 (Panic! At The Disco) → You Don't Have to Worry...
The result of the debate was speedily deleted under CSD R1 by User:East718. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As above, with "Untitled Second Album (Panic! At The Disco". --Qwerty (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
 * Delete implausible search term. –Pomte 08:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep for the same reason as in the discussion immediately above. Rossami (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Middle Of Summer → Middle of Summer
The result of the debate was double redirect fixed. Next time you see a double redirect, just fix it.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Double redirect. --Qwerty (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Not sure why the redirect was moved in the first place. –Pomte 08:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as retargeted unless there is a better reason to delete. Rossami (talk) 07:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

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

You Don't Have To Worry... (album) → You Don't Have to Worry...
The result of the debate was speedily deleted under CSD R1 by User:East718. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Less likely search target, and no incoming links. --Qwerty (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as plausible search term. People may expect it as lots of articles end in (album). –Pomte 08:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, there's no need to delete plain helpful, good faith redirects like this. Keep per Pomte's reason  Pump me  up  01:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

You Don't Have to Worry... (album) → You Don't Have to Worry...
The result of the debate was speedily deleted under CSD R1 by User:East718. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Less likely search target, and no incoming links. --Qwerty (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as plausible search term. People may expect it as lots of articles end in (album). –Pomte 08:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Cairo girls → Girls At The Cairo National Stadium
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC) It's far enough from the name of the target article to be misleading. It could just as well lead to Egyptian Feminist Union. It should run a search instead. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2007 (UTC)