Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 2

June 2
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 2, 2008

Consciousness causes collapse → Quantum mysticism
The result of the debate was withdrawn - Retarget at editorial discretion. Since it is protected, I guess you will have to start up another rfd to retarget, keeping in mind the result of the AfD. VegaDark (talk) 19:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The concept is not explained in the target article, and thus it is very confusing as a reader to be taken here. See Articles for deletion/Consciousness causes collapse for why the redirect is in place, note that no content has been merged. The article was nominated for deletion for being pseudoscientific and nonnotable, suggestions to merge it to quantum mysticism were meant to keep the info out of serious scientific articles. However, a number of pages link to Consciousness causes collapse as if the old article was still in place, and imply that the concept has validity (see Wigner's friend and measurement problem). The redirect implies that it is pseudoscience, but with no further explanation. It would be less confusing if it was deleted outright. Redirect is currently protected, so I can't add the rfd notice myself. 67.187.76.80 (talk) 04:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * (see below) Sppedy keep The AfD closed as preserving history. If the nominator wants the history deleted, then he should go to WP:DRV. While the target is not the most adequate, there has not been any suggestion of a better target. Notice that some of the AfD commenters were calling to merge this article and the target article into Copenhagen Interpretation or Interpretations of quantum mechanics and that I don't agree on the nominator's interpretation of the motivations of the commenters proposing a merge. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I do think that one of these two articles would have been a better target than Quantum Mysticism. Famous physicists wrestled with this question, and still today it remains an enigma (see the book Quantum Enigma), so it's unfortunate that the current redirect essentially denigrates the issue. TimidGuy (talk) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
 * keep and retarget to Copenhagen_interpretation. Looking at Interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics, I think that Copenhagen_interpretation is the one that fits better the redirect. I think that we should redirected it there, since Quantum_mysticism doesn't even mention consciousness, and the article linked from it Quantum_mind is arguing the opposite: that quantum collapse causes conscousness (or is part of how the brain works) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * keep and retarget to Copenhagen_interpretation. If there is one thing we have learned about Quantum Mechanics over the past century it is that extraordinary observations often require extraordinary theories. Before we delete CCC, let's take a look at the much more widely accepted Many Worlds Interpretation theory of wave collapse.  According to MWI, the Cosmos creates an unending supply of new universes in order to let the many outcomes of each and every action in the "parent" universe occur.  Was the coin toss heads or tails?  Well, it was both heads AND tails, depending on what universe you wound up in.  BTW, these brand new universes (or pre-existing parallel ones by some interpretations) come complete with identical copies of each and every atom, photon, galaxy, mountain range and coconut tree that the “parent” universe has (minus, of course, the “causal” atom or electron or roullette wheel spin or blown tire/not blown tire that caused it to seek its own separate universe in the first place). Sorry, folks, but this explanation does not help me sleep any better at night than CCC.  Given the impossibility of the things we are seeing in physics these days, I say we leave everything on the table, at least for now.  --Covemanic (talk)  17:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination. (I'm the nominator, but I'm on vacation in South Africa using someone else's computer). I agree that this should be on DRV, where more people might comment. Retargeting would effectively override the AFD, where people argued that CCC was invalid. I still think there are navigation problems, but I'll leave it to the experts to sort them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.207.40.212 (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Poopoo McDuffypants → Mark Sanford
The result of the debate was speedy-deleted as an attack page created by a confirmed vandal. Rossami (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason given in the article about why this redirect should be used, and the article at http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/1057265/strand_residents_give_site_unique_tweaks/index.html suggests that it is vandalism 86.150.252.34 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete: personal attack, no encyclopedic value. Scog (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)