Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 22

October 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 22, 2009

Zensursula
The result of the discussion was keep. While this clearly is a derogatory nickname, there's no consensus that it's an inappropriate redirect - most participants here seem to feel it is generally worth keeping and primarily applies to its current target. ~ mazca  talk 22:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Ursula von der Leyen (links to redirect)

A mocking name, a play on "Zensur", (German for "Censorship") and Ursula von der Leyen's real first name. So I suggest to delete this redirect. Rosenkohl (talk) 09:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree, but this one has found mention in numerous respectable publications: in Der Spiegel,  in Deutsche Welle. This also doesn't appear to be only a flash in the pan, usages in this context go back till April 2009 (see google news), also in more or less respectable sources:  in PC Welt,  in Abendzeitung,  in Heise. All in all, it appears to be a reasonable redirect, stable, well sourced, mentioned in the target page, not libelous, and should be kept.  Amalthea  11:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The rational to delete is not that the name would not be mentioned in respectable publications, but that it is a mocking nickname. Indeed I would call it libelous. By name-calling, the rediect implies the insinuation that she was advocating censorship. This insinuation may be facutally false, or true, or a legitimate critique, but this can't be judged and decided by Wikipedia. A redirect would suggest that the nickname is justified, which would be a non-neutral point of view. Greeting --Rosenkohl (talk) 11:20, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As indicated before, I normally agree with deletion of satirical or derogative nickname redirects, even if they are mentioned in some reliable sources. This one however is mentioned by lots of reliable sources over a significant period of time, is noteworthy enough to have a neutral and factual explanation of the term in the target, is a reasonable search term, and has been brought up in several interviews with her. Really, the more I look, no way can this be deleted. A huge amount of mentions in reliable sources, 21,800,000 google hits, it is highly conceivable that a user will want to look up the meaning or origin of the term. It shouldn't be misinterpreted as an endorsement, it's foremost a navigational help, and again, it leads to a neutral encyclopedic definition. I do agree though that it would be better if the von der Leyen article were expanded, so that it wouldn't be undue to create a section about the internet blockage to point the redirect at. Amalthea  12:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Each of the single given media sources explaines that it is a name coined on von der Leyen, so I can't imagine why a user would look up "Zensursula" without knowing to who it refers. If he does not know, he could also use the "search" function.
 * However, note that unlike a dictionary, an encyclopaedia does not collect "terms", but articles about real things. So the encyclopaedia should use the objectiv names of the things, as most commonly used by reliable sources. The usual name of the person is her official name "Ursula von der Leyen", and the name for the campaign may be "campaign against internet censorship" or something similar. All the newspaper sources mentioned don't use "Zensursula", but only mention or cite it, within quotation-marks. The page Zensursula doesn't use any quotation-marks in its title, so it is inavoidable that the redirect would be understood either as a "real" designation of the person, or as an endorsement of the campaign which is using this name as a weapon; in both cases it would be perceived as a non neutral point of view. Greeting --Rosenkohl (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The argument to delete doesn't really wash. The nickname is sufficiently well known and used in major sources to appear in the lead of the actual article on her. As long as it appears in a BLP article as a recognised nickname the discussion about the redirect being libelous seems secondary and pointless. Polargeo (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is clearly notable. 88.71.96.63 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

(After edit conflict) Well Polargeo to me it seems you refer back to the Wikipedia article Ursula von der Leyen, where in today's version the nickname is mentioned, though not in the article's lead. However Wikipedia is not more than a blog and can't be used as a source, also to avoid circular arguments it can't be used as a source for itself. From the sources Amalthea has provided, we see that the name is used exclusively by critics and political opponents from the extraparliamententary spectrum: So by no way it is an accepted nickname used to talk with, but only to talk about the person. Greeting --Rosenkohl (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * by the Chaos Computer Club According to PC Welt,
 * by de:FoeBuD, a small association who organizes the Big Brother Awards (Germany) according to Deutsche Welle,
 * by "numerous blogers and users of Twitter" ("zahlreiche Blogger und Twitterer") according zo Abendzeitung,
 * by a group of 250 demonstrators in Berlin in April 2009 according to Heise.
 * According to Spiegel, she has commented with the proverb "many enemys, much honour".
 * Yes but the fact that it is used by critics is not the point, wikipedia is not in the business of only putting politicians in a positive light. Someone could easily come across any of those sources that you mention and wonder to whom 'Zensursula' is refering. My argument about the article using it is that it is there that we would have to address the BLP issues first and not with the redirect. Therefore you are trying to chip away at this from the wrong angle. However, there are no BLP violations here and so why do we need to delete the redirect. Polargeo (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, Wikipedia shouldn't put politicians either in a positive or negative light. Actually my point was not that the redirect would put her into a negative light, but that it expresses the opinion of a fringe minority. Wikipedia doesn't either use redirects from nicknames which are only used by a small minority group of friends or adherents of a person. Greeting --Rosenkohl (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * keep The name is tied to that person and the connotation is clearly explained in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.162.40.215 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 22 October 2009


 * "The name is tied to that person" - Question is: by who? Obviously the name has not been tied to her by herself, her friends, or even the mainstream public opinion, but just by a fringe group of political activists. Greeting --Rosenkohl (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This redirect does not have any added value for Wikipedia since nobody will ever search for this term. Even worse, somebody who would get redirected to the entry of Ursula von Leyen without any explanation of the term. All the arguments above call for inclusion of the term in her own article but do not call for a redirect necessarily. I believe it is sufficient to explain the term in her article without a redirect. --hroest 07:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Stats show that people, albeit not a lot, are searching for this term. Mean spirited or not, this term seems to be in common usage, is unambiguously used to refer to Ursula von der Leyen and, as other have shown, is referenced in a number of respected publications. If this isn't mentioned in the article on von der Leyen, that seems like a problem with the article and not with with the redirect. — m a k o ๛  15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As explained above, it is not unambigously used to refer to Mrs von der Leyen. It is only used this way by a small group of campaigners. The respected publications only cite this usage, but don't participate in it. Greeting --Rosenkohl (talk) 09:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rosenkohl. Your arguments are fine but do not suggest deletion in any way per wikipedia guidelines. I know you have an issue with the nickname but that is not the same thing as it being against the wikipedia criteria for the existance of a redirect. Just saying that it is used by enemies is not a reason to delete. We are often measured by our enemies as well as our friends! Wikipedia should strive to achieve neutrality and redirects should be potentially useful in some way. This one is, end of story. Polargeo (talk) 10:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Margaret Barker (disambiguation)
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Margaret Barker (links to redirect)

Nom for deletion; rationale is that it is Harmful, i presume as a case of Apple/Orange. It was a two-entry Dab, with the 2nd being a red link without an article that provides usable info abt the subject. (She is one of three contributors to an "omnibus", and she is lk'd to only for thoroness in the other 2 authors' biblios.) The Rdr's title implies the bio pg of the primary topic is a Dab page, but it's now an article. (There are no lks to the Rdr, except from the primary topic's HatNote Dab, and i am abt to remove that HatNote. Jerzy•t 06:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, agree with points above, Boleyn3 (talk) 15:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- As per above. If there is need for a link to Margaret Barker (romantic novelist), it should through a dab link at the top of the more notable Margaret Barker's article. There is no dab page so there's not much need for this redirect. — m a k o ๛  15:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Worst baseball teams of all time
The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → List of worst MLB season records (links to redirect)

Redirect is inaccurate—article refers to MLB teams only, rather than discussing other leagues, professional and otherwise. Redirect title is subjective ("worst" by what measure?), while article title properly specifies worst record. TheFeds 05:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. Geschichte (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- A few reason: (1) This page gets a couple dozen hits a day and is a plausible search term. (2) The target does discuss the topic implied in the redirect's text so it is not inaccurate. If a topic is discussed only in part of an article, a redirect from the topic to the broader article is still appropriate. If this were were a problem, we'd have hundreds of thousands of redirects to delete. — m a k o ๛  15:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as highly subjective and potentially confusing. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. While the redirect is subjective, the target is not. So I have to agree with Mako. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Seems like a reasonable result for what people who might search for this are looking for. If a page detailing other leagues' (NCAA baseball perhaps) worst teams, then the redirect target can be changed to that. And yes, "worst" is subjective, but this isn't an article, it is a redirect, which allows for subjective titles if it is a reasonable search term. VegaDark (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Bell X1
The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Bell X-1. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Bell X1 (band) (links to redirect)

Retarget to Bell X-1, as I believe this is the target of least confusion, since the Bell X-1 was the first supersonic airplane, and has a very high profile, and many people write things without the hyphen. (like F16 instead of F-16, etc) 76.66.194.183 (talk) 04:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Support retargetting. Bell X-1 already has a hatnote link to the article about the band. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Bell X-1 -- The article on the plane gets about twice the traffic to the article on the band. That said, a factor of <2 seems like it would be a decent candidate for a dab page as well. — m a k o ๛  01:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget As above. Hatnote to band covers the disambig. Polargeo (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice the nom wants this retargeted. Nobody disagrees. Should this not just be closed? Or is the etiquette to keep for a week at least no matter what? Thanks, yours cluelessly. Polargeo (talk) 11:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Per the above discussion I have boldly retargeted the redirect to Bell X-1. On that note, I'd recommend a speedy close as no one has advocated deletion over the past six days. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Lil wyane
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Lil Wayne (links to redirect)

Implausible typo. — ξ xplicit  01:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete; the combination of non-capitalization and transposition makes this unlikely. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This gets 20-60 hits a day so a nominator based on implausibility of people ever hitting it seems a little unconvincing to me. — m a k o ๛  01:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a question. Why did this search term get almost no traffic until the page was created? Does wikipedia page creation automatically draw interested traffic (even to a redirect). Or am I missing something. Polargeo (talk) 10:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Actually I think I have answered my own question. This term was getting 0-5 hits (average around 1) then on creation of the page anyone typing in Lil w... into wikipedia search would have got the option and clicked for the redirect. Automatically creating 20-60 hits per day for this implausible redirect. So seems to me to be unconstructive and misleading. Polargeo (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Polargeo. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)