Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 10

December 10
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 10, 2009

Lisa M. Lee
The result of the discussion was Delete, with no prejudice for recreation should sourced information be added to a target. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 04:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * → Jun Choi (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Article was PRODed, and I'm tempted to just G6 it, but sending it here instead. Redirect is presumably a BLP, but Ms. Lee is not mentioned in the redirect target. Jclemens (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment a gsearch of the two names reveals that Lisa M. Lee is the spouse of the target. Are redirects required to meet WP:N?  I think if the redirect stands, Lisa M. Lee ought to be mentioned in the target; their wedding was reported in reliable sources. Josh Parris 07:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Anry
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 03:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * → Anger (links to redirect • [ history] • )

"Anry" is a first name in a number of languages (see Wikipedia search). However, since no one is known simply by that name (and no one with that first name has a page on Wikipedia), it should not be converted to a disambiguation or retargeted. In its present state, Anry → Anger seems absurd. I suggest deletion. Anyone who is looking for one of the people first-named Anry will then be able to find them in search. Plus, "anry" is a lot closer in pronunciation to Henri or (in some dialects) Ornery than to Angry. — The Man in Question (in question)  20:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've unprotected the page and added the rfd tag, but this should not be seen as an endorsement of the RFD itself. –xenotalk 20:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment presumably a redirect on spelling "angry"; there is meaningful history there but I'm not qualified to evaluate whether it ought to be retained. Josh Parris 07:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. What a ridiculously absurd redirect indeed, this Radiant guy should be heartily troutslapped.  JBsupreme (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Variedad Nehari
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 01:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC) Non-admin contested WP:CSD. Article is a redirect from a foreign translation of the title. Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I removed the speedy tag &mdash; I don't see any speedy criterion met by this redirect. I also don't see any point in deleting it &mdash; it's accurate, not misleading or ambiguous, not POV, it doesn't insult anyone, etc etc.  I would never have bothered to create such a redirect if it weren't there already, but I don't understand why bother to delete it either. --Trovatore (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the term "Variedad Nehari" gets 2ghits outside of WP. Josh Parris 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's a Spanish term for a very advanced mathematical concept with almost no Google hits under the Spanish name. Hans Adler 15:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful, and there's no harm in keeping it. Redirects from non-English names are encouraged. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 22:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment. The only reason this redirect even exists is that it was originally created as an article in this form, and then moved by a non-admin a few days later. WP:REDIRECT is badly broken if it discourages cleaning up in such situations. Wikipedia is full of editors who want to have the illusion of doing something useful without having to do any research. They particularly love to create tiny sub-stubs such as "Monaco–Uruguay relations" or idiotic lists such as "List of English nouns" or "List of politicians who drink coffee". Do we really need one of them to create WP:WikiProject Redirects from foreign language titles (a project with the express aim of multiplying our number of pages by 1,000 within a short time by creating useless redirects) before WP:REDIRECT is fixed or interpreted intelligently? Not deleting recent foreign language redirects is harmful because it makes it harder to delete them later (the odds rise that there are links from outside, such as a blog post saying "Hey, I found an English article on Nehari manifolds under Variedad Nehari. Those Wikipedians are getting madder and madder!", which will then become an argument against deletion) and encourages the belief that it is OK to create such redirects. Hans Adler 16:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually I think the history, that the redirect exists because the article was moved from the Spanish title, weighs if anything towards keeping the redirect, as it shows that the redirect came out of a logical process and was not created wantonly or capriciously.  I think the danger that editors will start creating redirects systematically in large numbers is very low; if that should happen it can be dealt with at that time.  In the meantime I'm against deleting correct, unambiguous redirects that are not actively problematic in some other way (e.g. tendentious or insulting). --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Parris. — The Man in Question (in question)  00:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)