Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 22

Eric Dill → The Click Five
The result of the debate was keep. -- John Reaves 01:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Has no notability on his own, and most people are likely to search The Click Five over Eric Dill when seeking information on him. Plus, the page was only created to advertise in the first place. The edits are mostly done by anonymous IPs and newly registered users who joined Wikipedia for the sole reason of advertising Eric Dill, implying conflict of interest. As for me, I am simply a fan, in no way affiliated with The Click Five. --Char645 08:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Large or small, Eric Dill appears to have played some role in the formation of The Click Five. A protected redirect was put in place due to WP:BLP concerns and frequent un-redirecting by anonymous editors.  Given that this person was apparently a founding member of the group, I don't find it unreasonable to retain this redirect, but am open to suggestions if there is a better alternative.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise you replied here. I apologise about your talk page! I just see no reason to keep his individual page because most of the info on him is already in the Click Five page. All of the band members have had individual articles, but they all were speedily deleted because they weren't notable, and Dill is no exception. If he starts doing things, then great, and I would be more than happy to add to his article in the future, but there's just no reason for it to still exist. --Char645 09:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If the names of the other band members are unique, it would be helpful to have redirects for them as well. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No, what I'm saying is that none of them are notable, and none of them seem to have any name recognition, such as how Bono is known outside of U2. --Char645 09:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems that you may be misunderstanding how we use redirects here. Bono is notable beyond the scope of U2, and as a result has a seperate article.  If he were not, we would similarly redirect Bono to the U2 page.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That's my point: Bono is notable outside of U2 whereas Eric Dill is not outside of The Click FIve.

Do what you want, I've stopped caring. It isn't worth the effort anymore. --Char645 20:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am beginning to question the objectivity of user Char645, because she is always attempting to prevent Eric Dill from having his own listing, even though there are various mainstream media articles about the fact that he is an independent musician signed with Atlantic Records. Yet Char645 is always trying to prevent this guy from having a listing. --Summerridge123 11:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Strong keep. This is exactly what redirects are for: assuming that Eric Dill is not notable enough to have an article aside from mention in The Click Five, this should be a redirect. We want people looking for information on Dill to find what we have, and we don't want to encourage the creation of an article for him if it would never expand beyond a stub that duplicates information from the band's article. As far as content disputes go, they would be problems with the article and have nothing to do with this shortcut. If the article gets deleted out of policy concerns or no longer mentions Dill in any way, then we should come back and delete this redirect; until then, the advertising/conflict of interest/IP spam angle is moot. Not only that, but this RfD nomination is bordering on being an end-run around dispute resolution.  Big Nate 37 (T) 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but tag as R from related word or something similar. (We really should have R from member to go along with R from album and R from song.)  Xtifr tälk 12:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: R with possibilities is normally the one to use, but only if you believe it should be eventually expanded into an article. Otherwise R to list entry and R to section are recommended, though neither are appropriate here. It does indeed seem that we need a redirect template/category for related, otherwise-non-notable subjects.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How about R from subtopic? It's currently a redirect to "with possibilities", but I think it might be able to stand on its own.  Xtifr tälk 01:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Turd burglar → Gay
The result of the debate was speedy deleted by, apparently as CSD G10 (attack pages).  Big Nate 37 (T) 08:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Non-notable term, implausible search term, inappropriately mocking and derisive. --MichaelLinnear 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Cult movement → cult following
The result of the debate was keep, no consensus on what to do with it though. I suggest someone be bold and do what they think is best. -- John Reaves 01:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Change current redirect to Classifications of cults and new religious movements or make into a disambiguation page that lists both cult following as well as classifications of cults and new religious movements. Andries 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Motivation: The term "cult movement" is a term used in one of the treated classifications. Andries 18:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Disambiguate because "cult movement" could either mean a fake cult (cult following) or a real cult. Shalom Hello 21:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Cult (disambiguation). --Metropolitan90 18:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians by sex → List of WikiWomen
The result of the debate was delete. -- John Reaves 01:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC) This page is a soft redirect to a hopelessly incomplete list of female Wikipedians on Meta. The redirect has no significant incoming links and no history worth preserving. If the main list was on Wikipedia, it would surely be deleted. In addition, the title ("by sex") implies that the target should include both males and females, which it does not. Delete as utterly useless. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as meaningless. DGG (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redirects to Wikimedia, uses Wikipedia: as prefix and doesn't redirect to a specific article. Besides, I personally (note the POV) find it quite discriminating. -- Loukinho 05:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm all for using categories where appropriate, but this could serve as a precedent for all sorts of pigeonholes... --Aarktica 18:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You cant have your cake → You can't have your cake and eat it too
The result of the debate was keep.and retarget to Have one's cake and eat it too. -- John Reaves 01:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC) Unlikely to be typed. --Spring Rubber 06:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, does no harm, might be typed. Kusma (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete anything might be typed--that's not the criterion. DGG (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Have one's cake and eat it too, which is where the current target points. Don't want a double redirect. However, it should be kept as an obvious and plausible typo/shortcut for the target.  Big Nate 37 (T) 08:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a plausible shortcut, though not particularly useful. Shalom Hello 21:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nothing particular wrong, other than the spelling of "can't", which is still ok and might help finding the target article. -- Loukinho 05:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

하늘 만큼 땅 만큼 → Like Sky, Like Earth
The result of the debate was keep. -- John Reaves 01:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC) People are unlikely to use a non-English title here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ayleuss (talk • contribs).
 * I disagree. Someone who knows both languages and knows the original Korean title might use that instead of trying to guess how it was translated. This is a common problem with all topics that start out in a non-English language. Cbdorsett 11:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. I concur with Cbdorsett. Redirects are cheap. -- Loukinho 05:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, R from alternate language, potentially useful (think you are on the Korean Wikipedia and replace ko by en in the URL), no possible harm shown. Kusma (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep somebody who doesn't know English very well but is fluent in Korean can find this redirect very helpful. Not going to appear in what links here, but will be searched in the search box. ( [ →]O - RLY?) 23:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: The general guideline is to keep foreign redirects if the target is a direct translation. I disagree with that guideline, but such as it is, it would recommend keeping this redirect. Shalom Hello 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: the target is a Korean topic, and a foreign-language redirect for the native language of the topic is about the most indisputably-useful type of foreign-language redirect there is. Xtifr tälk 12:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)