Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 1

October 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 1, 2008

Talk:Panasonic → Talk:Panasonic (brand)
The result of the debate was Withdrawn. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC) This nomination was withdrawn: after the redirect target was changed to "Talk:Panasonic Co.": see below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumpty-Humpty (talk • contribs) 10:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Panasonic Corporation → Panasonic
The result of the debate was Moved Panasonic Corp. to Panasonic Corporation as naming conventions discourage abbreviations. Whether the article should be at Panasonic or Panasonic Corporation is outside the purview of RFD. That should be handled at WP:RM. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The page "Talk:Panasonic" now doesn't accompany the article page (see 1. and 3. below).
 * The page "Panasonic Corporation" was created, not by mistake, but just for a redirect to increase ambiguity: brand name or company name?

Mistakes were recently made as to pages about Panasonic Corporation, which renamed itself on 1 October 2008. Now I'm at a loss where to state why "Panasonic Corporation" is the best title which conforms with WP:NCCORP.... Dumpty-Humpty (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Editor X moved "Panasonic" to "Panasonic (brand)" along with its Talk page.
 * 2) Editor X mistakenly moved "Matsushita Electric Industrial Co." to "Panasonic Co." (wrong name) along with its Talk page.
 * 3) Editor Y moved "Panasonic Co." to "Panasonic" but mistakenly left its Talk page behind.
 * 4) Editor Z created "Panasonic Corporation" to be redirected to "Panasonic".


 * NOTE before recommendation. This is not as bad as it looks. The move of the talk page can be reversed (and should be) - had the history been trivial (without the rfd tag, for example), any established, logged-in, editor could have moved it back (in this case, simply asking an admin would most likely do the job); then replace the resulting redirect with a small notice as there appears to be an article of the same name. If "Panasonic" how has two different articles reflecting two different meanings, disambiguate at Panasonic (as Panasonic (brand) already has a standalone article) and move the current Panasonic article to its full official name, Panasonic Corporation. Fix any resulting double redirects and you'll have everything cleaned up - with no deletions needed. Reverse talk page redirect; move Panasonic to Panasonic Corporation; dabify new Panasonic page; fix double redirects. Hatnotes atop both standalone article wouldn't be a bad idea, either (think of the different meanings of CBS, for example). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, which was enough for me to be bold to:
 * cancel 3. by moving back "Panasonic" solely to "Panasonic Co." (though it's a wrong title),
 * change the redirect target in "Talk:Panasonic" to "Talk:Panasonic Co."

Now the mismatches (of Talk and article pages) were dissolved I think. (Reverse proposed on "Talk:Panasonic" was avoided because it would make Talk on the brand to accompany the article on the company.)

The second nominee should be deleted. Whether "Panasonic Corporation" is used for a main page or not, this seems to be the only name used by the company as its official name. The redirect to a wrongly / ambiguously titled page is not appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumpty-Humpty (talk • contribs) 10:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep It's definetly featured in the target article... as the first two words no less. Ideally, the entire article should be moved to the redirect page, and at the least it should be left as a valid redirect, though to "Panasonic Co." not "Panasonic". - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Prem Rawat Foundation → Prem Rawat
The result of the debate was Keep, the results of the afd does not imply that a redirect cannot be created. Lenticel ( talk ) 23:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Recreated as a redirect the day after the AfD for this article was closed as "Delete" - see Articles for deletion/The Prem Rawat Foundation. There has been some conflict in the recent edit history as to whether a redirect should exist, taking into account the community consensus from the recently closed AfD, and so it is best at this point for the value or lack thereof of a redirect to be opened up to the community as well. Cirt (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. My own take is delete - the original article "The Prem Rawat Foundation" never really got much traffic at all, and taking into account the result of the community consensus as to lack of notability after the AfD, the redirect link that was created the day after the AfD closed as delete should be deleted. Cirt (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The AFD outcome was "delete", not "merge". I don't understand why this redirect was created right after the article was deleted. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 19:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see what is the problem with a redirect. The Prem Rawat Fundation (http://tprf.org), is a charitable organization, that is related to Prem Rawat who is its founder. An AfD does not mean that a redirect is not useful for our readers, and an AfD does not mean that an article cannot be re-created as a redirect. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Nom. Also, because the AFD outcome was "delete", and not "redirect." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * AfDs are unrelated to redirects. AfDs are for article deletions, as merges and redirects can be dealt with without AfDs. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The AfD is related as a consensus exist among editors that this article be deleted. You took it upon youself to go beyond this consensus, which has led us to this discussion. Per the votes above, I still believe your opinion is outside the present consensus of editors involved. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. "Prem Rawat Foundation" is discussed in the article, that makes this a fairly standard redirect. There is no requirement that the names used for redirects should be notable themselves. AfDs closed as delete do not preclude the creation of redirects. Many people commenting "delete" on AfDs do not turn their mind to whether the article should be replaced with a redirect and these are commonly added after AfDs close. A "merge" outcome would have required the keeping of the history, a "delete" one does not but it also does not mean "no redirect" and indeed, reading the AfD, the word redirect appears only once and no comment is made objecting to one... WJBscribe (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The redirect was clearly against the spirit of the AfD. Re:arguments to keep per WJBscribe - this is how I commented on the AfD and it applies equally here, I have bolded the most relevant parts:- Not merge, as content is peripheral to the Prem Rawat BLP, where the existence of TPRF and Rawat’s relationship to TPRF can be recor[d]ed, but all other content of the TPRF article is extraneous to the BLP. TPRF is doubly non notable because it's only public activity is providing small level grants for ‘humanitarian’ purposes, the grants are made to ‘delivery agencies’ which are themselves notable and it is in WP articles on those entities where noting TPRF grants might have relevance. Although given the low levels of the grants even that may not meet notability criteria.  --Nik Wright2 (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What has notability to do with this? Redirects exist to aid navigation. If someone types "Prem Rawat Foundation" or "The Prem Rawat Foundation" into the search bar, the article which contains information about this organisation is Prem Rawat, therefore it is normal practice to provide a redirect to that article. I am not sure what reason exist to depart from normal practice concerning redirects in this case. Also, please don't bold parts of your comment - it comes across as a little aggressive... WJBscribe (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - redirects are cheap, and there's no other likely target for this particular one. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I declined the speedy deletion request on this redirect.  I have been an admin for over two and a half years and we have never had a precedent that an AfD closed as "delete" precludes a future redirect.  It may well be that this one should be deleted, and that should be carefully considered by contributors to this discussion, but the AfD cannot in itself be used as reason to delete a redirect.  I have no prior involvement with this issue and no interest in whether or not this redirect is deleted; my involvement here has merely been enforcing deletion policy. Chick Bowen 01:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The consensus in the AfD was that TPRF is not notable because there are no reliable sources available about it other than TPRF's own press releases and 3rd party press releases concerning one or two of TPRF's specific donations. Delete means delete, not redirect.  As it now stands, the Prem Rawat article contains two mentions of TPRF, one in the lede and one in the "2000s" section.  In that article's "Footnotes" section are two direct links to TPRF's website.  In the "References" section there is a mention of a TPRF-promoted DVD of Prem Rawat speaking in Sanders Hall, Boston, Massachusetts which is an item available for sale, only from TPRF's online store.  It's my opinion that all of the above are more than adequate mentions and explanations of The Prem Rawat Foundation and there is no purpose for its article to be redirected and not deleted.  Sylviecyn (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirects are not to do with notability, they exist only to guide users to the article they are looking for. If someone is looking for information about this foundation on Wikipedia, surely they should be directed to the Prem Rawat article? The article has been deleted, as you will see from the page's history - the question is whether the title should serve as a navigational aid. WJBscribe (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining that but I know what a redirect is and I'm still against this particular redirect. I was trying to give some background info on this issue. Wikipedia isn't a search engine. Anyone can type "Prem Rawat" into Google or any other search engine and the first hit will be "The Prem Rawat Foundation."  If anyone is interested in learning more about him, they can also Google "Maharaji" and get many hits to provide more than adequate navigation to his personal and supporting websites, as well as his BLP article here.  It's overkill and non-encyclopedic promotion of a new religious movement and its leader, to argue in favor of this superfluous and unnessary redirect.   Moreover, the arguments being made here about Wiki "needing to provide easy navigation" are anemic arguments, imo, especially because the foundation's name is the same as the person who has a BLP here, Prem Rawat.  Plus, it's the principle of the issue of Jossi not even asking for consensus before he took the action, given he already has a stated Conflict of Interest as an employee of a Rawat-related organization, given the highly polemic nature of the Rawat articles over many, many years now.  Hope this explains.   Sylviecyn (talk) 19:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The baseline for keeping redirects has always been very low. If they're potentially useful and don't cause confusion, we usually keep them. No one has explained why we should depart from this practice in this case, nor do I see how having a redirect increases the "promotion" of anything. I'm also not sure why the creator of the redirect matters, it's just a redirect... WJBscribe (talk) 22:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment (I have already voted to delete.) Given the additional comments for delete above, I am further convinced that this subject should be deleted and not redirected. On another related point, I also agree with Sylviecyn in the statement, "the issue of Jossi not even asking for consensus before he took the action" is an important one. Another related point that was brought up wat that, "given he already has a stated Conflict of Interest as an employee of a Rawat-related organization, given the highly polemic nature of the Rawat articles over many, many years now." The above issues of one editor, acting alone against an established consenus among other editors, was unfortunately an issue in the discussion above - but, these specific discussions could prove to be a red-hering - and should be avoided as they are not completely directly relevant. Thus, regardless of these discussion, as is, this subject should be deleted. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Appropriate redirect, regardless of the afd. Reasonable search term. Given some of the discussion above, it might be well to us ethe opportunity to salt it by protecting the redirect. DGG (talk) 04:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep If this article cost $1 a year to maintain, I would say "Keep". But since it costs nothing, why would you delete it. Wikipedia is about sharing knowledge, we shouldn't restrict it.Momento (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Lanky → Gigantism
The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 23:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe this redirect really makes sense. Being lanky is unrelated to gigantism; the redirect could create a misleading impression. There is also no discussion about this term in the article. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 17:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Unlikely and inaccurate.  Dloh  cierekim  17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per and . Cirt (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, definitely misleading. May wish to soft-redirect it to Lanky if there's no plausible target on Wikipedia. ~ mazca  t 22:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete misleading definitely. JuJube (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

====Studies on the Chemical Nature of the Substance Inducing Transformation of Pneumococcal Types: Induction of Transformation by a Desoxyribonucleic Acid Fraction Isolated from Pneumococcus Type III → Avery-MacLeod-McCarty experiment==== The result of the debate was Keep as this is the paper's name. Implausibility of typing was addressed by cut and paste. Lenticel ( talk ) 23:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC) 

Huge honking redirect name. Would anyone *ever* search by such a name? TexasAndroid (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - name of published article that is discussed in target article. It is not an implausible misnomer: it's no typo; in fact, it's not a misnomer at all. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 16:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I called it neither a misnomer nor a typo. But correct or not, I still really, really doubt anyone will ever type out that huge thing as a search term. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not all search terms get typed out. It's not an implausible cut-and-paste search, and it's also useful from a semantic web perspective, since it provides a synonym for the article title.--ragesoss (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete not a useful R term.  Dloh  cierekim  17:52, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with . Cirt (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as an IAR deletion for being extremely implauible. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see no reason to delete it since it does no harm, and it's plausible, e.g., that some database that provides automatic links to Wikipedia would attempt to link to this title.  Obviously it's a minor issue, but what's the point in deleting it?--ragesoss (talk) 18:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep not really a minor issue. this is the title of one of the most famous biology papers ever, it would  normally be appropriate for the title of an article about the paper specifically--except that it is already covered adequately in the ALM article. A good case could be made that the paper and the experiment reported in it are independently notable--there is published historiographic work about the process of writing of the paper, not just of doing the experiment; I'm not going to do the article, at least not now, but I'm going to look for the refs. and add them.,  Someone might not type it in, but they might well try to paste it in.  This is an on-line encyclopedia--people paste search terms as well as type. We still seem no not  have gotten used to the fact that we really are NOT PAPER.  The principle for this is that since we could have written the WP article under this title, there should be a redirect from it. DGG (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Tricky dick fun bill → Economic Stimulus Act of 2008
The result of the debate was Retarget to Three Hundred Big Boys. Lenticel ( talk ) 23:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Never going to be anything useful; Tricky dick fun bill? A Futurama quote, for gods sakes; nothing to do with the 2008 ESA and more to do with Izanbardprince's vendetta against The Man. Ironho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 13:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC) <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 13:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Very POV redirect name.- TexasAndroid (talk) 15:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep with the new destination. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and TexasAndroid. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Three Hundred Big Boys - "Tricky Dick fun bill" concept is a major plot point in Futurama episode. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've boldly retargeted to the article on the TV episode. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete irrelevant, POV. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  16:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a useful redirect.  Dloh  cierekim  17:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing redirect to Three Hundred Big Boys works for me.  Dloh  cierekim  13:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Agree with . Cirt (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I'd call this a good joke in the wrong place, leading to a bad redirect. I have no problem now that it's been retargeted to the source of the joke. ~ mazca  t 22:40, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

公元纪年法 → Anno Domini
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 23:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC) <span id="公元纪年法">

I don't see why anyone would be searching the English encyclopedia using Chinese or Japanese ideograms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs) 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Per . Cirt (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a foreign language. Pie is good   (Apple is the best)  22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)