Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 14

May 14
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 14, 2008

Encyclopediadramatica.com → Encyclopedia Dramatica
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Website address is blacklisted in the spam black list, therefore the list should not be circumvented via a page name. It is also the creation of a banned ED troll and could be seen to violate the arbcom restriction on linking to this site.  MBisanz  talk 23:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Sorry, but the reasons you give for deletion are unconvincing. If Encyclopedia Dramatica is to exist, it is only logical to redirect Encyclopediadramatica.com there, spam blacklist and status of creator be damned. And arbcom does not have authority over content. Keep. Mike R (talk) 23:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. spam redirect circumvented via a page name which was created by a Blocked WP:SPA account from Encyclopedia Dramatica --Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of the four redirects under discussion, this is the only one that makes sense. Issues with the website itself aside, this redirect is a reasonable search term. If the main article were not recreated, I'd say off with it - but, since the article is suffered to exist, this should be as well. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep per Prosfilaes' comment. I see that Slashdot.org also exists. The two redirects with the "æ" character are extremely unlikely. The ".org" one is very unlikely, but it could happen. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Delete On the other hand, Rossami is right, this is just an attempt to make publicity of ED. We would never allow a redirect from the company website to the company article, for example. This should trump the marginal usefulness of this redirect. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC) Keep this one as a posible search term, and delete the other three as they are not very probable. I don't consider this an attempt to bypass the blacklist, since it's not an outgoing external link. Even banned users make some stuff that is worth preserving. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yield to ED AFD -- Ned Scott 11:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep so long as the target exists. This is a real URL for the wesite at the target; redirecting respects the principle of least astonishment. Needless to say, if the target is redeleted, this can be speedy deleted per criterion R1 (missing target), but that needs no action here. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - this one, no special chars unlike the other two. An unlikely search term admittedly, but just plausible. The ARBCOM case [I think] referred to links, not mentions/redirs, although I may be wrong.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 19:51, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete regardless of the AFD decision. Redirects just to advertise the subject's URL are strongly discouraged under Wikipedia's policies on spam and advertising-like content.  Rossami (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, you have a point worth considering, and I appreciate the fresh outlook. If an article subject just happens to have a website, we needn't redirect from the website address to the article, but in cases where the article subject is a website, common practice appears to be redirecting from the address. This is an interesting topic for discussion, though; perhaps we can pick it up again at a later date when people aren't so riled up by a specific instance? – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as likely search term, spam or not. Whether or not you want to believe it, a lot of people still identify websites by their web address. And considering this is a website, wouldn't the web address be pertinent? See Amazon.com. --SmashvilleBONK! 14:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unhelpful redirect. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait for ED AfD, duh. There's no other article a user could possibly be looking for, if they type this in; the only question for me is whether we have an article to point to. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; "We would never allow a redirect from the company website to the company article, for example." Really? Microsoft.com and LibraryThing.com exist as redirects, for example. And I don't see any real reason why not; they're obvious, plausible redirects. Same principle here; as long as the target exists, there's no reason why the redirect shouldn't. Though I would have waited for the AfD to finish first...--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a somewhat plausible search term (assuming the article survives its AFD nomination). Terraxos (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is common practice to provide redirects like these for articles about web sites. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopediadramatica.org → Encyclopedia Dramatica
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 00:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Website address is blacklisted in the spam black list, therefore the list should not be circumvented via a page name. It is also the creation of a banned ED troll and could be seen to violate the arbcom restriction on linking to this site.  MBisanz  talk 23:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete. spam redirect circumvented via a page name which was created by a Blocked WP:SPA account from Encyclopedia Dramatica --Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Probably as plausible as the .com redirect, but I don't believe we need both. As .com is the website, I'd say this one can go - Consider me as a weak delete, I guess. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep so long as the target exists. This is a real URL for the wesite at the target; redirecting respects the principle of least astonishment. Needless to say, if the target is redeleted, this can be speedy deleted per criterion R1 (missing target), but that needs no action here. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - this one, no special chars unlike the other two. An unlikely search term admittedly, but just plausible. The ARBCOM case [I think] referred to links, not mentions/redirs, although I may be wrong.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 19:51, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge this discussion with the ED redirects. (If kept separate, count me as a delete for the same reasons given above.)  Rossami (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete see my !vote on the first one of the four redirects --Enric Naval (talk) 09:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unhelpful redirect. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait for ED AfD, duh. There's no other article a user could possibly be looking for, if they type this in; the only question for me is whether we have an article to point to. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep; not the main URL, but still a possible search term. Not keeping this because of spam is silly; it's not a link, and we shouldn't make Wikipedia worse so it's a tiny bit harder to figure out where ED is.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a somewhat plausible search term (assuming the article itself survives its AFD nomination). Terraxos (talk) 00:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is common practice to provide redirects like these for articles about web sites. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopædiadramatica.com → Encyclopedia Dramatica
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Website address is blacklisted in the spam black list, therefore the list should not be circumvented via a page name. It is also the creation of a banned ED troll and could be seen to violate the arbcom restriction on linking to this site.  MBisanz  talk 23:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete. spam redirect circumvented via a page name which was created by a Blocked WP:SPA account from Encyclopedia Dramatica --Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an implausible search term. Users are unlikely to utilize the special character "æ" in the search field. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this one. Nobody will type the combination of a website address and "æ" ligature. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - these two, 'ae' character makes these very unlikely search terms.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 19:51, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge this discussion with the ED redirects. (If kept separate, count me as a delete for the same reasons given above.)  Rossami (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; I don't like the assumption that everyone who uses Wikipedia has a QWERTY keyboard; Danes, to mention just one group, have æ on their keyboard. The magic distinction between æ and a is purely Anglo-centric bias. That said, it's not part of any URLs (for any practical purposes), so no one is going to type it with .com or .org.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - extremely unlikely search term, www.encyclopædiadramatica.com does not even redirect to encyclopediadramatica.com. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopædiadramatica.org → Encyclopedia Dramatica
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Website address is blacklisted in the spam black list, therefore the list should not be circumvented via a page name. It is also the creation of a banned ED troll and could be seen to violate the arbcom restriction on linking to this site.  MBisanz  talk 23:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete. spam redirect circumvented via a page name which was created by a Blocked WP:SPA account from Encyclopedia Dramatica --Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an implausible search term. Users are unlikely to utilize the special character "æ" in the search field. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 01:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this one. Nobody will type the combination of a website address and "æ" ligature. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - these two, 'ae' character makes these very unlikely search terms.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 19:51, May 15, 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge this discussion with the ED redirects. (If kept separate, count me as a delete for the same reasons given above.)  Rossami (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, unhelpful redirect. Stifle (talk) 14:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Inclined to agree the 'ae' is pretty unlikely. If the article is deleted, obviously these should go, too. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete; I don't like the assumption that everyone who uses Wikipedia has a QWERTY keyboard; Danes, to mention just one group, have æ on their keyboard. The magic distinction between æ and a is purely Anglo-centric bias. That said, it's not part of any URLs (for any practical purposes), so no one is going to type it with .com or .org.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Careful assuming about assumptions; as far as I understand things, this is an illegal character in domain names to begin with. – Luna Santin  (talk) 10:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is under the old restrictions, and the new ones are being rolled out piecemeal; I don't know that it will ever be valid .com name, though .dk would permit Encyclopædiadramatica.dk. But it was called a "special character" above, and that's been used on RfD several times recently, not just talking about domain names, and it is an Anglo- and ASCII-centric assumption about which characters are "special" and which are "normal".--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - extremely unlikely search term, www.encyclopædiadramatica.org does not even redirect to encyclopediadramatica.com. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy Joe → Joe Lieberman
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A derisive nickname should only redirect to its object if the nickname is widely-used enough to be discussed in the object's article, which is not the case here. Mike R (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. This is a derisive nickname. Even if it was a notable nickname, we would need very strong reasons to keep it as a redirect, since it seems to go totally against BLP --Enric Naval (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - the word "holy" is nowhere to be found in the target article. B.Wind (talk) 05:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Travis Aaron Wade → Jasmine Dustin
The result of the debate was already speedy deleted by User:DragonflySixtyseven. — Gavia immer (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of Travis Aaron Wade in target article B.Wind (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, no reason for redirect if not discussed in target article. Mike R (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Someone really needs to stop this user Hashmi, Usman from creating useless cats and article - most have been deleted. ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Close - already speedied. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian Texan → Ukrainian American
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of the term, "Texan", or "Texas" in the target article B.Wind (talk) 17:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless you want 49 more of these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, pointless, sets bad precedent. Mike R (talk) 22:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Someone really needs to stop this user Hashmi, Usman from creating useless cats and article - most have been deleted. ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have warned him, and nominated a similar category that he created. If he doesn't stop, it might be time to start thinking on bringing it to ANI --Enric Naval (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've tagged about 15 others for speedy deletion (each one is gone now). An equal number of categories of his creation have no more than two articles each; there were also about 30 category redirects that appear to be good candidates for deletion, too. B.Wind (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He removed the warning without answering and then he created another category with 1 article, so I have warned him again. I also see him adding two suspect categories to an article. They are Category:Canadians_of_Arab_descent and Category:Canadians_of_French_descent, and they look correct until to try to descend into the subcategories and discover just how underpopulated they are. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete WP:OVERCAT, links articles that are not really related since being a scotish that happens to live on Cuba is not a defining characteristic of a defined group, and it will probably stay underpopulated --Enric Naval (talk) 04:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - as above, not only could this set a precedent for the US, but every country. 'Micronesian-Londoner', anyone?!  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 19:53, May 15, 2008 (UTC)

Johan Lædre Bjørdal → FK Bodø/Glimt
The result of the debate was Keep (non-admin closure), the redirect has been turned into an article, therefore not needing deletion through an RfD.'' Basketball110  My story/Tell me yours 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Needs an article. Not a redirect to the club. Rettetast (talk) 17:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Since his name is mentioned in the target article, it is fine to redirect him there until his own article is written. Keep. Mike R (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If he needs an article, then anyone can just hit "edit this page" and replace the REDIRECT thing with a stub --Enric Naval (talk) 04:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Article has been created. Basketball110  My story/Tell me yours 22:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Timothy Andrew Knighten → List of Scottish Americans
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 00:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Name appears nowhere in the list B.Wind (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Someone really needs to stop this user Hashmi, Usman from creating useless cats and article - most have been deleted. ww2censor (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --EivindJ (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Italian-Irish-American → Demographics of the United States
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 23:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is useful. The target article does not contain "Italian" or "Irish", and contains the word "Italy" only once, not referring to Italian-Irish-American (whatever that may be). (the creator) creates numerous pages of questionable utility. (e.g. Category:Swedes of Russian descent) This, that and the other [ talk ] 10:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete The same editor, whom I have been watching for many months, keeps adding catagories and articles that are basically useless and virtually all of his edits are deleted. He will never enter into any dialog and removes all posts from his talk page. It really seems that he really does not want to know how to edit per any guidelines other than his own. ww2censor (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This borders on speedy territory - there are no documents, articles, etc., that refers to any group of people as "Italian-Irish-American." Redirects of the form "(nationality)-(nationality)-American" should be similarly speedied as nonsense... I'd say the same for "(nationality)-(nationality)-(nationality)", but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a single specific counterexample to this. B.Wind (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - As above. This also sets a bad precedent for creating thousands of - etc. redirects with only spurious coverage [if any]. <small style="font:bold 12px Trebuchet MS;display:inline;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;"> RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 17:29, May 14, 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete unless you want a million more of these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per all arguments above. Mike R (talk) 22:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per abovementioned arguments. --EivindJ (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)