Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 26

October 26
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 26, 2008

Nuclear cannibalsim → Energy cannibalism
The result of the debate was Delete with creator's consent.Tikiwont (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Implausible typo PhageRules1 (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Transposing "ism" to "sim" seems pretty plausible to me. The redirector's creator did it (and looking at the editor's other contributions, it does appear to be a good-faith mistake).  Why should this be deleted?  Rossami (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks PhageRules1 -- yes - I made a typo - I will delete the wrong redirect and spell it right and send it -- thanks --Chum2 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Eddie Perez (criminal) → Eddie Pérez (politician)
 The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 10:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

3rd deletion criterion, it is offensive. Perez was never a notable criminal even in his youth, so this is not an expected search term. It was created when a vandal moved the article. Explodicle (T/C) 16:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC) ''Also nominating Eddie Pérez (criminal), see below. -- Explodicle (T/C) 22:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)''


 * Keep. The article says right in the lead that he was involved in organized crime, and it does have citations for this claim, though it needs more, better ones. It doesn't appear that the bare claim that he was a criminal is contentious. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as a BLP violation or vandalism. Even if we ignore the NPOV for redirects, he's not a "criminal"...he hasn't been convicted of a crime.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is not sourced for any claims of criminal conviction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.107.151 (talk) 01:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaning toward keep . WP:BLP does not apply in this instance because the subject is a public person - as a politician, he no longer has a reasonable expectation of privacy over events in his life.  The sources in at least one version of the article do substantiate that he is or at least was considered a criminal.  That said, the redirect is clearly pejorative.  In an election year, the creation of such a redirect must be viewed with a great deal of suspicion.  However, I can find no evidence of other inappropriate editing in the contributor's history so I will assume good faith.  Rossami (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If he had been convicted of a crime, I might agree with you. But be hasn't been.  Besides, he's a politician, some people consider -all- of them criminals.  And I'm not even sure we have actual criminals under "(criminal)".  Let me ask you something, if a news article referred to him as an "asshole", would you support a redirect from Eddie Perez (asshole)?  --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not support a solely pejorative redirect like your example but this one is on the line - it's pejorative but maybe not solely pejorative. Conviction by a court would certainly be evidence of criminality but it is not necessarily the only allowable evidence.  Is there any evidence that this redirect was created in bad-faith?  Rossami (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If this were created in bad faith, I'd be worried, because it means the bots are developing opinions. But I don't see why we need bad faith here...intent shouldn't matter when fixing something like this, only when dealing with the user who did it (and I don't think we need to spare Eubot's feelings).  Quite simply, calling someone a criminal when they're not is not only incorrect, it's libel, and that's exactly the kind of thing WP:BLP is trying to prevent.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Eubot created that redirect because of this one: Eddie Pérez (criminal) (note the accent). The current article was moved there by a vandal and then reverted back. Here is the vandal move, here is the reversion, and here is the warning. My apologies for not nominating both redirects, I didn't realize there were two until just now. -- Explodicle (T/C) 21:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying the article's history. The review of the original mover's contribution history is troubling but I'm not sure that it's sufficient to make a clear determination of vandalism.  I'm going to change my opinion to abstain for now.  Rossami (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Per REDIRECT, lack of neutrality is not, in itself, a reason to delete a redirect; and in this case, it may be a factually accurate description (though it's questionable; while Perez was a gang member in his youth, he's never been convicted of any crime). However, what it comes down to is that this is an unlikely search term, and for that reason more than any other, it should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 16:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete because I see no need for that particular redirect. Someone searching for Eddie Perez is not going to be confused that he isn't listed as a criminal - not least because he has never been convicted as one. Wikipedia does not need a proliferation of unnecessary redirects based on spurious aspects of people's lives. Bonfire of vanities (talk) 01:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Q (%27%27James Bond%27%27 character) → Q (James Bond)
 The result of the debate was Kept. No consensus for deletion. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Not needed, because of improper use of quotation marks. David Pro (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per the above. Doubled single quotes are unlikely to be typed or searched, and can cause technical problems. For example, I had to mangle the link above in order to make it work. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also nominated Q ("James Bond" character) per the same reason. David Pro (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep both because they help to document pagemoves made in good faith to the article. The fact that the pagemoves were later overturned (also in good faith) is part of the project's history.  Leaving the redirect in place makes it easier for future editors to find the dispute and to avoid making the same mistake.  The redirect itself is harmless.  "Not needed" is not a reason to delete a redirect.  Rossami (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think that redirects like these are deleted as implausible misnomers. Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 8 has a list of redirects of that type that have been nominated by Floaterfluss, and all these redirects have been deleted. David Pro (talk) 18:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Quotation marks are discouraged in "in parentheses" disambiguation. Q (James Bond character), or - even better - Q (James Bond), satisfy disambiguation naming policies; the nominated two do not. B.Wind (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Harmless.  --Rumping (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Although quotation marks are discouraged, this one documents a page move and should be kept. PaulGS (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I apologize, for it is I who caused the problem and the confusion. Anyone who is going to comment on this needs to READ THE DISCUSSION PAGE FOR THIS ARTICLE, because you'll find therein the reasoning for the change, which is that I was trying to put "James Bond" in italics, not quotation marks (a simple check of the spacing will indicate that), to suggest a distinction: that Q is not a James Bond character (e.g. an alias for James Bond or a character created by an author of the same name); rather, to indicate that Q is a character in the James Bond franchise.  Therefore, whether for or against, let that distinction inform your decision, and that of potential modification of other James Bond characters.  Thank you. cocoapropo (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for demonstrating the precise reason that these redirects need to be deleted in the first place - they are a distinction without a difference and the above argument (and the mention in the discussion page) actually reinforce the impression that the quotation marks that are suppose to distinguish, in fact, blur the point. The fact here is a simple one: the redirects are confusing and violate WP:NAME regarding disambiguation. If the "Q" of the James Bond movie series is different from the "Q" of the James Bond novel series, it should be treated within the articles themselves. Delete. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 20:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

As of 1996 → 1996
The result of the debate was Delete considering also the wider consensus.Tikiwont (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC) Another "as of" redir. David Pro (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 12:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Can't we keep all those as of redirects? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In fact we've had a steady stream pass through RfD in the past few weeks (see and, for example). Then there's WP:As of... 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per examples cited by IP above. B.Wind (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Polymer Vision → Philips
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Not clear why Polymer Vision should link to Philips as they don't seem to be related. The redirect was established by user Mac who later had his account suspended on grounds of abusive edits 85.24.120.207 (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as retargeted. Polymer Vision was spun out of Philips. The redirect has been retargeted to the section that mentions this, and the section is in dire need of explanation and expansion, but this is a valid redirect. B.Wind (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Readius → Philips
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Not clear why Readius should link to Philips as they don't seem to be related. The redirect was established by user Mac who later had his account suspended on grounds of abusive edits 85.24.120.207 (talk) 09:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as retargeted to section mentioning Polymer Vision, maker of the Readius. The section is in dire need of expansion, but this is a valid redirect. B.Wind (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Manthey Racing → Porsche in motorsport
The result of the debate was Kept. Feel free to convert to a stub. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Manthey Racing is a German auto racing team who happens to compete with Porsches. Although they have worked with and been supported in various ways by Porsche over the years, including competing in brand new race cars, they are not Porsche. Manthey Racing has competed with other makes besides Porsche as well. Redirecting to Porsche in motorsport ignores the independence and previous history of the team. The359 (talk) 07:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This redirect is useful, as Manthey Racing actually enters many Porsche in motorsport. As pointed out on my talk, Manthey should be a disamb, and Manthey Racing is already mentioned in many articles . Nobody claims that Manthey is a reincarnation of the factory, or a factory racing team. -- Matthead Discuß   15:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hundreds of teams enter Porsches in motorsport every year. The fact that we don't have articles on them doesn't mean we should create redirects for all of them simply because they are associated at one time during their existence with Porsche. The359 (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know much about Manthey or European motorsport, but if they're a well-known team, then it's likely someone would search for them. If they also compete with other cars, then a more useful redirect might be to a well-known driver, a more general article like F1, or a page which mentions Manthey more heavily. If nobody has any better suggestions, then maybe Porsche in motorsport is the best place for it, since that article says they're factory-backed. PaulGS (talk) 03:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - racing team is discussed in the target article, making this a likely search term and a useful redirect. B.Wind (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment How about we turn this into a stub? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No objection here. If someone has enough to write a cited stub article about Manthey Racing, he/she should go for it. B.Wind (talk) 01:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Scuderia Filipinetti → List of Formula One constructors
The result of the debate was Sub'd per 4u1e. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Scuderia Filipinetti was a racing team which has competed in many disciplines and championships. Although they were indeed entered as a privateer in Formula One, they should not be redirected here as it ignores years of other competition. The359 (talk) 07:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ecurie/Scuderia Filipinetti was a quite famous Swiss team until the early 1970s. Recently, a book about them was published . While the redirect is not perfect at all, having its existing Wikipedia entries linked is helpful for anyone interested in it. I might even write an article one day, but surely not if destructive deletionism succeeds again. -- Matthead Discuß   15:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A redirect to a page which merely mentions that it privately entered Formula One is not useful at all. Deleting an incorrectly placed redirect is not "Destructive deletionism", nor would it ever prevent anyone from actually writing an article. The359 (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can we shortcut the discussion by just creating a (ref'd) stub? (would this do?) 4u1e (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It'd be more useful, yes. I suppose that would do, but I don't know much about the team other than that they're Swiss and mostly ran Ferraris in the WSC. The359 (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Scuderia Filipinetti was a Swiss motor racing team that competed in Sports car racing and occasionally in Formula One between 1962 and 1973. It was founded by Georges Filipinetti to support Swiss driver Jo Siffert, but employed many other drivers including Jim Clark, Phil Hill and Ronnie Peterson. The team ran its cars in a red and white livery and most often used Ferrari cars, although it also employed cars from other manufacturers." How about that (it is only supposed to be a stub!), with the Amazon 'see inside' as a reference? To be expanded when someone has the time. 4u1e (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would not object. The359 (talk) 22:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me too. DH85868993 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, can we just do this, or do we wait for an admin to action? 4u1e (talk) 08:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Go for it. You don't have to wait until the discussion is closed before you post an article under the same title. In fact, it's recommended under WP:BOLD. Cheers! 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia administrator → Administrators
The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ( talk ) 05:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Improper CNR to policy page, does not link to content  MBisanz  talk 01:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Few people know about admins off-wiki and honestly I think we have enough redirects for it already - WP:ADMIN, MOP, SYSOP, ADMINISTRATOR, and probably more. This is an unnecessary redirect in my opinion. &mdash; Ceran ♦ (Sing) 23:54, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Striking vote, Rossami's points are vital. I change my !vote. &mdash; Ceran ♦ (Sing) 21:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. What possible page could a reader be looking for except the Wikipedia policy page?  The omission of the colon is a very plausible typo, especially for a new reader who doesn't yet know about the different namespaces, certainly doesn't know about all our complicated shortcuts and is looking to learn about or to contact an admin.  There is no reasonable possibility of confusion with an article at that title and this redirect does no harm.  Don't make it any harder on our new readers than it already is.  Rossami (talk) 03:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy → Accuracy dispute
The result of the debate was Retarget to fact. Lenticel ( talk ) 05:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Improper CNR to policy page, should link to some sort of article on accuracy.  MBisanz  talk 01:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Then be bold and retarget it. You don't need to delete the pagehistory in order to do that.  Rossami (talk) 14:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Fact, where this concept is described. See also Factual accuracy. Cenarium  Talk  01:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikpedia:Abuse reports → Abuse reports
The result of the debate was speedy delete under R3 as implausible typo, as well as a CNR. seresin ( ¡? )  01:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Unlikely misspelling of a CNR to the Wikipedia space.  MBisanz  talk 01:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Requests for assessment → Article assessment
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to inactive Wikipedia page, does not link to content.  MBisanz  talk 01:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Semi-keep - The redirect can be changed to a soft redirect if needed, or the title could be changed to 'Requests for article assessment'. WinterSpw (talk) 16:35, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete This expression could be used in a variety of contexts unrelated to Wikipedia and so it is improper to redirect it to a Wikipedia specific entry. The page is not needed for historical purposes or otherwise, so the only viable option is deletion. Cenarium  Talk  17:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)