Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 11

February 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 11, 2009

Assyrian Christian Stele → Nestorian Stele
The result of the discussion was delete. — TKD:: Talk  08:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC) This redirect should be deleted as no academic source uses the term "Assyrian Christian Stele" for this object. It was made by an editor wanting to "correct" historical inaccuracies, but without any sources it is simply a case of WP:OR. Long discussions have been had through 2 AFDs here and here. The 2nd AFD was closed with an admin recommending that this matter should be resolved here. Please read my entry in the 2nd AFD for the long explanation about the inappropriateness of this title, even as a redirect. Otebig (talk) 15:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm leaning toward deletion here, but isn't it possible that someone might search for this term? I see at least a few ghits on it.  Graymornings (talk) 06:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All the search results on Google for this term are copies of the Wikipedia article before it was changed to a redirect. Otebig (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The history of the redirect, the AfDs, the DRV, and so forth indicate that one or more editors would be likely to use the nominated redirect as a search item. Thus, inaccurate it may be, satisfies WP:RFD. Because this has been the center of a highly contentious sequence of edits (, etc.), I'd recommend Keep and protect to prevent the restoration of the original article at this name. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - even if the name is inappropriate, the redirect is worth keeping as it preserves the history of this page. Robofish (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand the logic there - why would we keep a made-up term just for the history? First of all, all the discussions over this term are preserved elsewhere (the discussions happened mostly on the Nestorian Stele discussion page or the AFDs, which will all be preserved). Second, what happened to the WP:OR standard we need to be upholding? I believe this applies for redirects as well. After all, if I just made up a term now (say "Eastern non-Orthodox Church Stele") which has never been used by anyone or appeared anywhere before, then proceeded to misrepresent sources, claiming they used my new title when in fact they don't, would such a redirect be kept just for its page history, or would it be removed as the made-up OR it is? Addressing the IP's point above, the point of a redirect, as far as I understand, is to help people locate an article, based on the belief that someone, somewhere, at some point is likely to use the term in the redirect to search for an article. This is not at all likely for this term, "Assyrian Christian Stele", because only one person in the world, the user who created the page, has used this term. He created it - you can't find a clearer case of an WP:OR violation. All Google hits are copies of his Wikipedia edits. All these debates, from the re-namings and moves to the AFDs and to this very discussion, all of this is because one person made up a term. Keeping this as a redirect basically says "hell with maintaining 'no original research', throw up whatever names you want, if they sound good to you". If anyone would be likely to use this term, then you would be able to find even one google hit that isn't based off of a Wikipedia page. You can't, however. The discussion histories over this name are preserved in other articles, this name violates all aspects of WP:OR, and to keep it is to basically say that OR violations are okay. Otebig (talk) 06:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is part of larger debate that has been rumbling along for some time. We know the early Christian missionaries in China came from Syria by the language on their monuments, but not which sects they belonged to. They were probably not "Nestorian", which was an insulting and usually inaccurate tag applied by the Greeks to most Syriac churches. But almost all westerners call the monument the "Nestorian Stele", or perhaps the "So called Nestorian Stele". I am fairly sure nobody calls it the "Assyrian Christian Stele". There are passionate views about the name "Nestorian Stele". The editors of Assyrian Church of the East and Assyrian Church of the East in China hate the term "Nestorian", which they rightly consider pejorative, so they have invented Assyrian Christian Stele with a redirect to Nestorian Stele. The redirect itself does not bother me. As a rule, it is best for a link in the text to point to a similar name to the linked term, which redirects to the official name. I greatly prefer Red Indian to Red Indian Redirects are good! But should the two articles that refer to Assyrian Christian Stele have their text changed to Nestorian Stele? Technically, I think they should, even though the name is inaccurate and insulting, rather like Papist. It is the commonly used name for the stone in the English-speaking world. A long way to say technically it may be right to change the text to "Nestorian Stele" in the articles that link to it, and also change the name of the article about the Syriac church in China. But I am not volunteering to getting into an edit war. I say, someone else should sort out this mess. Or just leave. What is the harm? Think I agree with Robofish. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I completely understand the issues and potential NPOV problems with "Nestorian Stele". But let's focus on the one question being addressed right here - does this redirect violate an important Wikipedia policy - no original research? Like you said, Wikipedia editors "have invented Assyrian Christian Stele". I've said since the start that if just one reliable source used that term, a re-direct would absolutely be warranted. The problem is, no source does, and the "harm" is that the credibility of Wikipedia is based on policies like WP:RS and WP:OR. The combination of this being a case of OR, combined with that fact that no one (besides the editor who made the page) is likely to search for this term (which is the point of a redirect) since it is a case of OR, means that this redirect shouldn't be here. As I said above, to leave it is to say that WP:OR applies only some of the time, which is not how Wikipedia works. Also, as said above, all history on the discussion of this term/article/re-direct is saved on other discussion and AFD pages, which resolves Robofish's concern with removing the re-direct. Otebig (talk) 03:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * delete per nom, and salt, violates WP:OR, and there is no need to keep an edit history for a poorly-created, misspelled, generally text-copy content fork created without discussion or warrant. Leaving it invites trouble down the road. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If the redirect is deleted, how do we deal with the redlinks in the articles that refer to the name? We could in effect move the redirect into each article as: Assyrian Christian Stele . I don't like that at all. An explicit redirect at least shows the reader what is going on: they see "Redirected from Assyrian Christian Stele" at the top of the page. If the invented term "Assyrian Christian Stele" is to be purged, the articles should be fixed. But then we have an article on a religious group using a term that is derogatory to that religious group. NPOV and NOR are clashing head-on. The term "Nestorian Stele" violates NPOV: although widely used it is inaccurate and derogatory. Any other term violates NOR: in English, the stone is almost always called "Nestorian Stele". I would prefer to be unusually neutral than to be conventionally biased. But this type of conflict must have come up elsewhere. There must be precedents. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * These redlinks can easily be changed to either "Nestorian Stele" (plenty of academic sources note the title is inaccurate even while using it - we can do the same) or to the more neutral "Xi'an Stele" which I just made a re-direct for (this term is sometimes used in English-language academic sources to refer specifically to this stele, as opposed to the other steles in Xi'an, and its use would not be OR). Otebig (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * O.k. - I am fine with changing the text in the two articles to Xi'an Stele and deleting the Assyrian Christian Stele redirect. Aymatth2 (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (My opinion was asked by Aymatth2.) I see in google books 2 uses of "Xian Stele" for this stele, 1 for a Buddhist stele, and 3 for nonspecific steles from the area, which is of course famous for a great number of them; in contrast, for "Nestorian Stele" there are 1235 uses in GBooks.  In Google Scholar, I see 25 for "Nestorian Stele" and zero for "Xian stele". Nestorian Stele is therefore the standard term. "Xian Stele" might become standard, but is not the term at present. Unless it becomes unequivocally adopted, it seems unsuitable  as a specific term, because of the many others from the area, some famous in other contexts. I'd therefore oppose the rename. As for the links from the term, the text in those articles should be changed to Nestorian Stele and then there will be no difficulty. I cannot understand how it can be called Assyrian Christian Stele in articles when the term has been shown to have never been used outside Wikipedia.
 * as for this redirect, we normally do make redirects from articles that have been moved, but not when they are clear mistakes. But in any case this article was not moved--the Assyrian Christian Stele was was simply a copy of the Nestorian Stele article, so there is nothing in the history of the article to preserve. As the term has never been used outside Wikipedia, I cannot see how anyone would search for it. DGG (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the two Assyrian Christian articles to say "... commonly (if incorrectly) called the Nestorian Stele..." Think that works. The Assyrian Christian Stele redirect now has no articles pointing to it, and is unlikely to be a search term, so Delete. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that the inclusion mentioned immediately above gives the redirect the context needed for it to be a useful one. It may be factually wrong, but the fact that some people refer to it by that name makes it a plausible search item per WP:RFD. The Google scholar mention above confirms it. The lack of incoming links to a redirect is also irrelevant to its utility - see the top of WP:RfD. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * By what logic? Reading carefully, "the term has never been used outside Wikipedia, I cannot see how anyone would search for it." What could be clearer? Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 00:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Multiple concerning Penguin Islands
The result of the discussion was keep both (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Delete: no need for unnecessary disambiguation. Chris DHDR 12:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Penguin Island (Namibia) → Penguin Islands
 * Penguin Island, Namibia → Penguin Islands
 * Keep. I don't see that these do any harm by existing, and they might get used. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Keeping the name of the country as disambiguation actually aids in the search, as other countries and territories (Australia, Antarctica, and have "Penguin Island" (singular)... and there's that Wikipedia article about Penguin Island by Anatole France. There is also the North Penguin Island Light in Canada, which I'm sure would attract the attention of the WikiProject dealing with lighthouses. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can see these terms being searched for. No reason to delete IMO. They're useful.  Graymornings (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * keep as potentially useful if a user is aware of other Penguin Islands. PaulJones (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Damien Lewis → Damian Lewis
The result of the discussion was keep. Redirects are easily overwritten - anybody wishing to write a stub article for the author is encouraged to do so. (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 05:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC) Delete: there should be a redlink for Damien Lewis as author of a shortlisted book in CWA Gold Dagger for Non-Fiction, rather than having this name hijacked as a spelling mistake for an actor. PamD (talk) 11:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Stubify - this misspelling occurs quite often; so deletion would not be recommended here; instead, write a stub article for Damien Lewis with a hatnote for Damian Lewis instead; then request an expansion at the appropriate WikiProject (Biography, perhaps?) afterward. Simply deleting in this case is asking for a recreation... and then we're back in the same position (or worse, if CSD G4 gets bandied about). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * agreed - sorry, don't know if I'm doing this right, but I agree with the above comment. It's a perfect compromise. 12:50am 14 February 2009
 * Keep - Common misspelling. When spoken vocally, the spelling of this name can be ambiguous. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a probable misspelling. Tavix (talk) 04:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a plausible typo - can be unredirected if someone feels moved to create a stub. TerriersFan (talk) 04:41, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Toilet ship of doom → Starships in Stargate
The result of the discussion was delete both. — TKD:: Talk  07:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ori toilet ship of doom → Starships in Stargate

Delete Utter silliness, very uncommon fan term (4 google hits for ''"Toilet ship of doom" stargate, unlike Ori toilet ship, which has at least 350 GHits). – sgeureka t•c 11:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Silly redirect. Not a recognized term.  Graymornings (talk) 06:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Flush it, get rid of it - a most unlikely search term with no context in the target article. Woosh! 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Boyd valve → Earth starships in Stargate
The result of the discussion was delete both. — TKD:: Talk  07:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Boyd valves → Earth starships in Stargate

Delete I am a big fan of the Stargate franchise, but I have no idea what a "Boyd valve" is. The wiki article doesn't mention the term, the Stargate wikia has got nothing, and Google neither,, although there may be a real-world meaning for the term. Delete to remove the confusion. – sgeureka t•c 10:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Flush it, get rid of it - there's nothing to connect it with the series or any other reason to save it. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That Google Web search, which hits mainly Wikipedia mirrors, won't get you to a real world meaning. But this will:  James Boyd and Brother of Philadelphia was a company, long since out of business, that made firefighting equipment, including parts for water pumps.  See this advertisement and this advertisment.  That is probably the closest that one is going to get to a Boyd valve, although technically it's a valve seat. Uncle G (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not mentioned on target page, so unhelpful redirect. Robofish (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Melanie Pavlik → Wrong
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted CSD G10 by User:Jclemens (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 04:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Delete. Offensive redirect that was the editor's only contribution. Aspects (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete per criterion G10 (attack page). I have so tagged it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)