Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 18

April 18
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 18, 2010

Myanmar Radio and Television/version 2



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was speedily deleted per WP:CSD - redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism. . Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * → Myanmar Radio and Television (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This was created temporarily when reverting some page move vandalism -- Boing!   said Zebedee  23:41, 18 April 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Probably speediable, but delete in any event as useless.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 05:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, WP:CSD includes "redirects created by cleanup from page-move vandalism." Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Delete Clearly not helpful or needed. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 03:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * → Ride cymbal (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Very unlikely search term or link title; there is no reason why anyone looking for information on the ride cymbal (or anything else, for that matter) would search for "Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding". Unscented (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * delete per nom. I'm amazed it's taken since 2007 for anyone to nominate this! I was wondering about a retarget to ding ding, but there has to come a point beyond which we do not go, lest we carry on infinitely until we reach the maximum page title length (255 bytes or 51 dings if I've got the sums right). As we don't even have ding ding ding so seven dings would seem to be ebyond that point. Thryduulf (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as idiotic.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 05:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nonsense, not much relevance, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  11:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, funny but not really a useful or plausible search term. --Taelus (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete - the first time I saw this, I immediately thought of the possibility of redirecting to The Price is Right (U.S. game show) as this is the trademark sound of winning a pricing game on that programme. Alas there is no mention of the ringing sound in any article associated with the quiz show; so, off to oblivion it must go. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Detele - Am I the only one who is reminded of the Simpsons' episode Bart Carny (and therefore, an ice cream van)? Maybe I should create a redirect from Ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding ding... Seriously, seven "ding"s aren't necessarily associated with a ride cymbal, are they? --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 09:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless someone was searching for the most unusual search terms, the redirect doesn't show much point being here any longer. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Kaylin Krashesky



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * → Alan Krashesky (links to redirect • [ history] • )

No need to have the daughter of a newscaster redirect to his page. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 17:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Refine target to Alan Krashesky as Kaylin is not notable enough for her own article, but she is discussed in the targeted section. B.Wind (talk) 03:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Rural geography



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * → Rural society in China (links to redirect • [ history] • )

There should be an article about rural geography, a subfield of geography currently covered by nine other Wikipedias (see, for instance, the Spanish article). Anyways, I don't see a single reason for redirecting it to a country-specific article at the moment. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely misleading redirect, should make room for an own article. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. No reason for this to redirect specifically to China, and encouraging the creation of an article would be helpful. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - No reason to go to China, that's biased in a way. Why not Rural society in Laos? In fact, aren't geography and society two separate things, 'cos I'm pretty sure they are. It could be an article in its own right, so a red link would be more helpful, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  11:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - it is never a good idea to redirect a general article to a specific topic. Supersets should not redirect to subsets. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Rural area, which is also the target of Rural. I don't have any particular attachment to this redirect, so if people want to delete it that's fine too, but I don't think anyone is ever going to create an article on rural geography (frankly, the term doesn't make very much sense), and I think Rural area might as well be the destination.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 23:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, rural geography is the science whose objects are rural areas, just like urban geography deals with urban areas. A redirect would discourage creating an article on this (imo, quite highly relevant) topic. You're gonna find it in every dictionary of geography, there are textbooks about it, and again, nine other wikipedias already do have an article about rural or the closely connected agricultural geography. Notable academics like Paul J. Cloke (a fellow of both the Royal Society of New Zealand and the British Academy) are concerned with it. There also is the broader term rural studies, which covers rural economics and rural sociology, too. If there were an article about it, I wouln't mind redirecting rural geography to it for some time, yet I'm sure it is an topic worth of being covered by an article on its own. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 08:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless it can have its own article - Should not redirect to China. Either delete it, or make room for a new article. Décembër21st2012Freâk   Talk at 23:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Jeremy Shum



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Deleted & salted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * → Selena Gomez (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Jeremy Shum is, as best I can tell, some sort of non-notable would-be entertainer or online guy, and his article has been deleted five times over the past three years. It was recreated the other day as a redirect to Miley Cyrus, where he is mentioned in the title of one of the references (I'm guessing a totally unreliable, self-promotional reference which should be removed), and has now been retargeted to Selena Gomez, where he is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form. I'd recommend deleting and salting this useless and misleading redirect.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 09:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete and salt per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep There's no prima facie reason to suggest redirecting a page to Selena Gomez is not in good faith, and is self-promotional or spam under Rule 10. I would take this view particularly because an impartial Google database search displays mathematical quantitative statistical regression to 'Selena Gomez' as a related term to 'Jeremy Shum' (http://i39.tinypic.com/j64dqa.png).  Now as to notability on Wikipedia, the past reasons stipulated have been on the basis of insufficient reliable sources; but this is contrasted with more than a million Google results, a dedicated Image results section on Google, and an impartial statement by MySpace the related page has 217,661 views (http://i43.tinypic.com/o0s13p.png).  Although notability hasn't been established (and I would probably agree with the need not to have a separate page due to 'insufficient reliable sources'), I would argue Counter Rule 3, which states a reason for not deleting a Redirect is that it 'aids searches on certain terms'.  If it's good enough to be on an impartial search engine like Google, it seems to me, it's fine on Wiki if it's just a redirection. -Selenafan35 (talk) 21:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC) — Selenafan35 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - No indication of a reason why someone looking for Gomez would search for "Jeremy Shum" or why someone looking for Shum would find Gomez a helpful response. +salt, please. - SummerPhD (talk) 05:59, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - supra, Selenafan you can't link Jeremy Shum to Selena Gomez because they are cousins. It's just like linking Ron Cyrus to Miley Cyrus, people will get confused. -Tool53535 (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and WP:SALT - Unhelpful. Not mentioned in target, and not notable enough for its own article, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  11:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - since MySpace is not a reliable source we cannot consider it. The only evidence of existence within Wikipedia is a link to this, which links Shum to Miley Cyrus, not Selena Gomez. Because of the repeated recreations, a little salt is in order; if someone by the name of Jeremy Shum (somehow) merits a standalone article in the future, it can be created in either an incubator or a sandbox, then have an admin approve its post at an appropriate time. Now is not that time, as evidenced by the Google search results of the person (roughly one-eighth that of an obscure Internet meme). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with you Wikipedia is not a reliable source and 200K+ views only shows 'interest' but doesn't demonstrate notability (as per wikipedia guide). Jeremy Shum may be Selena Gomez's cousin but this doesn't demonstrate notability, as per why Miley Cyrus' brothers and sisters were removed from Wikipedia. Furthermore, there are no notable news story worthy of this reference.-Tool53535 (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - per nom. Décembër21st2012Freâk   Talk at 23:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Barry Soetoro



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was Keep at current target. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 01:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * → Barack Obama (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Currently redirects to Barack Obama, as a name he used for a time as a child. However, for various reasons (see talk on the redirect page), the name is sometimes (like now) not mentioned in that article. Additionally, the name is best known (again, see talk) as part of a conspiracy theory (the whole "birthers" mess). As such, I feel the target should be Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories. SummerPhD (talk) 03:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep current target. I asked SummerPhD to bring this here due to a longstanding dispute as to the proper target of this redirect. It's unfortunate that the birthers have latched onto this name as if it means something about Barack Obama's citizenship one way or the other. It's also unfortunate that various editors' responses to the birther nonsense have resulted in a hypercorrective overreaction to this name, attempting to minimize it in Obama's biography and target the redirect anywhere other than at the article on the person who actually went by this name. In my opinion, NPOV demands that this name briefly used by Barack Obama should just point to the main article on Barack Obama, and not anywhere else. Such a practice is not controversial anywhere else in the encyclopedia, and in fact tends to emphasize the contention that this name has some bearing on the birthers' contentions, rather than to minimize it as is probably various editors' good-faith intention. We should do here what we do for other names used briefly by other people - just point it at the name the subject is best known by and be done with it. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep it's been confirmed he was called "Barry" as a boy, and that his stepfather's name is Soetero, so it's a reasonable search term. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep current target. Just because some folks may spin some silly conspiracy theory around Barack Obama's childhood name (for part of his childhood), its use is well documented, and there is nothing inherently POV about the fact that Obama used--for a time--a nickname for a first name, and took the name of his stepfather. LotLE × talk  06:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note. This was nominated in a 2009 RfD closed as "keep". B.Wind (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The previous RfD was suggesting deletion (and the second "Keep" above seems to be responding to that. I am not suggesting deletion. I am suggesting that the redirect go to the article that discusses what someone searching for "Barry Soetero" is likely looking for. Are they looking for an article on a very well known world leader, but somehow got his name confused with a name he briefly used as a child? Unlikely. Are they searching based on a reference to the bizarre (but far more common) conspiracy theory? Seems far more likely, IMO. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. Nom was unclear as to requested action (which here defaults to delete); as for the comment, the topic was very well discussed in the previous RfD. What has changed? Wikipedia is not responsible for the activities of people in a fringe movement who have lost court case after court case regarding the lawfully elected President of the United States of America. WP:FRINGE was written for a reason, and this is clearly it. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I was "unclear as to requested action"? How so? "Currently redirects to Barack Obama, ... I feel the target should be Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories." Seems clear to me... Yes, the claims made based on Obama's use of the name are absurd garbage, as the suggested target describes. If you Google "Barry Soetoro", how far do you have to go in the results to find something other than the birther nonsense or a Wikipedia page? I stopped looking after 10 pages. A Google news search is no better.
 * Yes, the birther claim is nonsense, but it is notable nonsense. My proposed target gives an introductory sentence then says, "The suit was dismissed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The presiding judge, James Robertson, said the case was a waste of the court's time, calling Berg and another lawyer 'agents provocateurs' and their local counsel, John Hemenway, 'a foot soldier in their crusade.' He ordered Hemenway to show cause why he should not pay the legal fees for Obama's attorney as a penalty for filing a complaint 'for an improper purpose such as to harass.'" Does that sound even remotely like defense of this nonsense?
 * Instead, were asked to have "Barry Soetoro" redirect to a page that does not so much as mention the name. Maybe "9/11 Truth" should redirect to September 11, 2001 attacks (where the truth about the attacks is explained) instead of the notable fringe 9/11 Truth movement. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The 9/11 example is a really poor analogy. Closer would be the suggestion that C-4 (explosive) should redirect to 9/11 Truth on the grounds that their conspiracy ideas involve that type of explosive having been planted on the WTC.  The mere fact of some fringe group using a word/term/name doesn't suddenly give them ownership of something that has independent and prior meaning.  LotLE × talk  19:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I Googled "C-4". None of the results were 9/11/2001 related. For "Barry Soetoro" ALL of the first 100 were about the conspiracy nutjobs. Similarly, all of the results for "9/11 truth" were about those conspiracy nutjobs. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep per previous RfD and the fact that NPOV doesn't apply to redirects (see WP:RFD). At this point, no one has advocated deletion and only the nom has suggested retargeting. B.Wind (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment NPOV has nothing to do with this discussion. Deletion was not being discussed this time. The previous RfD was discussing deletion. Essentially, then, your rational is "Keep because everyone else is saying keep." Fine, but what about the substance of the discussion? Google "Barry Soetoro" and tell me this: are 99.99% of people searching with that term looking for information on Obama, his presidency, etc. or are they looking for information on this loony, but notable theory? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)