Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 20

January 20
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 20, 2010

The word 'fuck'
The result of the discussion was Delete. Although technically this discussion shouldn't be closed for an other 12 hours, I think that in this case, the consensus won't change - especially as this is a continuation of a discussion from the previous day, which is linked to here, where the result was unanimous. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * → The word 'fuck' (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete for same rationale as Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_19: ""Unnecessary redirect; we don't have (or need) "the word X" for every word "X" on which we have an article. Glenfarclas (talk) 01:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)"" . davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per comment there, although as it was mentioned there already couldn't these two entries be bundled together? --Taelus (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They could have, if the bundling was done on January 19 server time. Different day, different RfD log page.  Also, even if they were done on the same day, the "clock" would start running effective with the latest nomination.  We "could" move yesterday's nomination to today but that would be too much work with little if any benefit.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. — the Man in Question (in question)  17:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, whichever day and under whichever nomination; same reason as my previous nomination!   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Charlie Brooker's Newswipe
The result of the discussion was  speedy close; discussion moved to article talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * → Newswipe with Charlie Brooker (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I'm hoping to move the 'Newswipe with Charlie Brooker' page to 'Charlie Brooker's Newswipe' but can because the page exist. Everybody calls it Charlie Brooker's Newswipe, even Charlie Brooker calls it 'Charlie Brooker's Newswipe' Thanks,   DotComCairney  10:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * This is the wrong process to discuss potential db-move deletions. You should propose a page move at the relevant talk pages in order to gain consensus, then tag with db-move once consensus agrees to do so. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jonathan webb (v8 supercars)
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 22:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * → Jonathon Webb (racing driver) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete, incorrect spelling, capitalisation and disambiguation qualifier. --Falcadore (talk) 03:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment other than NPP, 4 hits since creation on the 7th indicate it is a viable search term. No meaningful history. Josh Parris 03:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pretty implausible that someone would misspell the name while at the same time using the nonstandard disambiguator. Would have been an R3 candidate. Jafeluv (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Watch
The result of the discussion was no consensus. Opinions differ strongly on whether this redirect is a useful navigational aid. Some evidence has been presented that the title is a reasonable search term. It also gets a fair amount of traffic, although some of it is likely to be a result of the internal discussions surrounding the article and the redirect. On the other hand, the target article does not really discuss the term itself, although some content mentioning it has been added to the article. A redirect being "drama-laden" is not a valid reason to delete. Since there's no agreement on whether directing the reader to Criticism of Wikipedia or a search page is preferable, the default position is not to delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * → Criticism of Wikipedia (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Target mentions name of redirect once only. Redirect is of no navigational value, indeed it misleads the reader as to the extent of the coverage in the target article. "Criticism of Wikipedia" would still come up as a hit were this term entered into the search box. Redirects should be to article which contain content about the term in question, not merely a reference to it or quotation from it. WJBscribe (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kill it with fire - a worthless, drama-laden redirect referencing an already-demonstrated non-notable website. Drama and time-wastage follows this stuff wherever it goes & its usefulness to the project is dubious at best. Nobody cares except a few Wikipedians - A l is o n  ❤ 01:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The repeated attempts to delete this seem to be the current source of all the drama. If people just left it well enough alone, there would be no drama... Hobit (talk) 04:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is a perfectly reasonable and likely search term and Criticism of Wikipedia is the most reasonable destination for it, now that the Wkipedia Watch article has been deleted. In fact, this is one of those cases where WP:IAR is directly applicable and should override other, more technical considerations. The fact that there is only a brief mention of Wikipedia Watch in the Criticism of Wikipedia article says a great deal about the level of animosity here towards Daniel Brandt and anything to do with him. This animosity was openly on display in the recent DRV discussion, Deletion review/Log/2010 January 9 that is the immediate predecessor of this RfD and Alison's post above is a perfect example as well. Personally, I strongly share this animosity, but as a Wikipedia editor, I think allowing ourselves to act on such animosity is very damaging to the project. Doing things like deleting this redirect only makes Wikipedia look petty and vindictive and unable to handle criticism. This is very damaging to the external credibility of Wikipedia. I did not participate in the AfD that led to the deletion of the Wikipedia Watch article itself, but I think that deleting it was a mistake. Given the amount of newscoverage for Wikipedia Watch, I find it impossible to believe that the article would have ever been deleted were it not for it's relation to Brandt. We should not compound that error by now going after something as minor as this redirect. So, both because the redirect itself is perfectly reasonable and per WP:IAR considerations, I say strong keep. Nsk92 (talk) 02:07, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is hardly indicative of animosity, and I'd appeal to you to WP:AGF here. If I wanted to stick it to Brandt, deleting his stuff is not the way to do it. On the contrary; despite my dislike of the man and his methods, we need to stay dispassionate and clearly delete the redirect. It's irrelevant, worthless, non-notable as a search term, and simply not worth the effort - A l is o n  ❤ 02:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict x2) (Disclaimer: I was the creator of the redirect) Redirects are cheap and it's a usual practice to make redirects to the only article that mentions the name, even if it's only trivial coverage. As soon as it's the correct topic, of course. It's a website that is critical of wikipedia, so Criticism of Wikipedia is an adequate target and it brings people to a non-misleading topic. In the AfD discussion, Criticism of Wikipedia was mentioned as the adequate merge target, and as the article that covered the topic of this website, and the only article where this website should ever appear mentioned (Wikipedia also appeared as a relevant article).


 * About being an unlikely search term, see that the website is quoted by name by three articles of The Register, by SF author Kathryn Cramer in her blog, by the MIT Technology Review magazine, in a Infoworld article, by the Sydney Morning Herald, by a Zdnet article by a Agence France-Presse news piece so it has a good chance of having been reproduced in some paper source and its creation is mentioned in the New York Times, etc. People are bound to find the term and search for it in wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment no history to speak of, a massive amount of non-article space links, no article-space links. Substantial traffic.  Delete this and it will be re-created. Josh Parris 03:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. TLDR version: There is not one good reason to delete this redirect, there are 4 good reasons explicitly listed at WP:R to keep this, and other good reasons not listed there. Full version: If there wasn't any history of conflict between the operator of this website and many Wikipedians there would be no drama about this and it would be a completely non-controversial redirect (and so the drama and controversy here is distinctly non-NPOV). Wikipedia Watch formerly had an article, but an AfD deemed that it was not sufficiently notable enough for a standalone article, but it does merit coverage in the article Criticism of Wikipedia. People searching for "Wikipedia Watch" are going to be looking for either, an article about that website (we don't have one, but there is some limited coverage in Criticism of Wikipedia) or they are going to be looking for an article about criticism of Wikipedia (which is the subject of the website). So, under any other circumstances, this would be a redirect to Criticism of Wikipedia. Regarding policy, WP:R lists as one reason for having a redirect: "Sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article.)", and as I explained in my previous paragraph this redirect is an example of such a case. WP:R lists 10 reasons you might want to delete a redirect, reasons 1-8 very obviously do not apply. Reason 9, "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject. In these cases, it is better that the target article contain a redlink pointing back to the redirect.", might apply had there not been consensus at AfD that there should not be an article at this title. Reason 10, "If the redirect constitutes self-promotion or spam. (Speedy deletion criterion 11 may apply.)" is the only other that bears discussion. There was overwhelming consensus at DRV that speedy deletion of this redirect was inappropriate, so that part does not apply here. Other commenters have shown that this is a very useful search term, and the target article does contain coverage of the the subject, so I don't see how this is spammy or self promotional. Furthermore, WP:R lists among its six reasons not to delete a redirect, "2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely [...]", "3. They aid searches on certain terms.", "4. You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect." and "5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." Both myself and other contributors to this discussion and the DRV discussion have shown how all these apply to this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, at first my reaction is "Oh no not this again.", but in all fairness it gets alot of traffic, and redirects to a relevant term which is mentioned, although very briefly. It doesn't seem worth breaking alot of inbound external links that are most likely relevant to critcism anyway. Whilst there is drama assosiated with this page, redirects are cheap, and I just think that breaking lots of inbound links will lead to recreation, eventual salting, and then even more drama. --Taelus (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Isn't needed and isn't helping the project by existing.  MBisanz  talk 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Given the significant amount of traffic this receives, please can you explain how (a) it isn't needed, and (b) how it is not helping the project. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Much of that traffic is generated from our own popularization of the term. Its not helping the project since it is discouraging certain editors from contributing and not encouraging others to contribute. Net negative.  MBisanz  talk 00:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, come again? Just how exactly is the existence of a lowly redirect "discouraging certain editors from contributing"? As for "not encouraging others to contribute", this has never been held as a reason against inclusion of a redirect or an article. The standard reasons to have or not to have articles and redirects are supposed to be primarily encyclopedic, that is reader-oriented, not editor-oriented. The conventional  WP:R standards for including a redirect are very low, much lower than notability of the subject involved, as Thryduulf clearly articulated above. The fact, that this is a redirect for a plausible search term and that the target of the redirect is a reasonable destination for it, is already a more that sufficient reason for keeping it. Nsk92 (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and unprotect I see no need to delete this redirect as it serves as a useful navigational aid. Nor do I see a reason to preemptively protect it. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete There is almost nothing about Wikipedia Watch in the target article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost nothing does not equal nothing. As has been detailed above, people searching for Wikipedia Watch are looking for one or both of the following:
 * Encyclopaedic information about Wikipedia Watch, in which case this redirect takes them to where the limited amount of encyclopaedic information we have about it is. In other words, if we have a redirect, this is the correct place for it to be targeted.
 * Encyclopaedic information about criticism of Wikipedia more generally. In this case the redirect takes them to the encyclopaedia article that contains exactly what they are looking for, which is the primary purpose of a redirect.
 * WP:R clearly states that in cases such as the first of these, that the deleting the redirect is only appropriate if the title of the redirect should be the location of an article about the topic (the reason being that the article that is the target of the redirect should contain a red link to prompt someone into writing the article). However in this case, there is consensus that there should not be a standalone article about Wikipedia Watch, therefore this reason for deleting the redirect is irrelevant. Please see my comment above where I detail why the only other possible reason to delete this redirect also does not apply, and why at least four of the explicitly listed reasons at WP:R to keep the redirect do apply. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete because its a waste of time to spend any effort on this matter, and it will get renominated again and again and again. The redirect was already previously deleted and discussed ad infinitum.  With the time saved by forgetting Wikipedia Watch for all time, we can spend some time avoiding the book burning going on around here these days.--Milowent (talk) 16:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See the deletion log. A redirect by that name was deleted three times: once when someone created a message there that was moved to userspace, once when it was redirecting to another redirect, and once when the article it was pointing to was deleted (it was undeleted later). It was never deleted because of being a redirect to an article where Wikipedia Watch was covered. Please discuss this redirect in its own merits, not in the merits of situations that no longer apply. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - clearly of navigational value, and this RfD is clearly is at risk of being good-faith forum shopping, given the previous DRV on the subject. Also please take notice how this is being discussed off-site to understand some of the real motivations behind this nomination some of the !votes. FWIW, I was also planning to include some more material related to Wikipedia Watch in Criticism of Wikipedia -think I'll do it soon, given the RfD. -- Cycl o pia talk  14:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I resent the allegation of forum shopping. The DRV overturned what some participants viewed as an out of process deletion. I have therefore nominated the redirect for deletion via the appropriate process (RfD). I'd rather you didn't presume to know my "real motivations". My motivations are those I stated above. Throwing mud around is hardly a constructive approach to this discussion. WJBscribe (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies. Unfortunately my WP:AGF skills are put to great stress when dealing with these cases, and discussing this again and again is akin to forum shopping, even if in good faith. But your mileage for sure may vary. I redacted some of my comment above. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep and put an end to this drama once and for all. The policy based reasons for keeping have been hashed and re-hashed, and have never been refuted. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I have read many of the pages of discussion about this and other articles related to this one person. Much of this seems to have lost sight of the use of redirects - that is to lead reader's somewhere useful. Currently we have a redirect that goes to an article, where the subject of the redirect is not even discussed; it is just used largely as a reference/source. I had to search around to find why I was in the Criticism-of-xxx article and then discovered that the article told me nothing at all about the search term I'd used. Totally useless as a redirect; on par with having a redirect from an books's name to the article where it is used as a citation on a different topic - Peripitus (Talk) 10:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That isn't a good analogy. The point of the Wikipedia Watch website is criticism of Wikipedia, so linking to the article about criticism of Wikipedia is relevant. A better analogy would be redirecting from the title of a book about criticism of Windows XP to Criticism of Windows XP that has a small amount of material about the book and uses it as a source. As I have pointed out above, WP:R states that the only reason to delete such redirects is so that an article about the subject can be written in it's place. However consensus has shown that there should not be an article at the title Wikipedia Watch, so this does not apply. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As a reader, who is indifferent regarding Wikipedia Watch or it's owner, the redirect is simply confusing. It takes me to a place that tells me nothing about the search term at all. I think confusing readers is a poor result. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Changing the redirect to Criticism_of_Wikipedia would help a bit. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really that much. I followed your link and still have to hunt to find the single mention of the term. If Wikipedia Watch were a paragraph in the article then the redirect would be useful, but is it barely mentioned and then only once - Peripitus (Talk) 11:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I expect a redirect to tell me something about the title of redirect. This tells me nothing. Griffinofwales (talk) 21:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - I find the reasons given for keeping, plausible, appropriate and intelligent. The target appears appropriate as it goes directly to a section where Wikipedia Watch is mentioned in context. Those who don't see the point of the redirect are advised to read the target section more closely.  SilkTork  *YES! 11:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Drama laden and worthless. ⇌  Jake   Wartenberg  00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The drama is entirely in the minds of a few Wikipedians and is thus irrelevant to the question of whether we should have a redirect to help our readers. I have set out in detail above why I feel this is a useful redirect, would you please expand your assertion that this is useless so that I and others may understand why you are this opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment To whoever has complained of Wikipedia Watch not being discussed enough in the redirect target: I added content about Wikipedia Watch in the Criticism of Wikipedia page (in two separate paragraphs: one about privacy, another about plagiarism). I invite the participants to review my contribs (it seems to me short enough to not meet WP:UNDUE) and, if accepted, the content should make the redirect definitely meaningful. -- Cycl o pia talk  12:46, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment- Wow, i'm a little surprised this hasn't been closed yet. Umbralcorax (talk) 07:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Me too. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

1984 Haiti earthquake
The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * → 1984 Dominican Republic earthquake (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This redirect probably should be deleted. The article was first created based on sloppy reporting stating that there was an earthquake in Haiti in 1984. The earthquake was in fact in the Dominican Republic, so the article has been moved and updated. To my knowledge, there were no other notable earthquakes in Haiti in 1984. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep mark it as an unprintworthy redirect... (R from mispelling pops to mind, but its not really a mispelling). I see it as a plausible misconception, and a 1984 Hispaniola earthquake should exist as well... 70.29.211.138 (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I did a little digging online, and the earthquake is mentioned in some articles about the 2010 quake as "striking Haiti".  Examples:
 * : "While smaller quakes happen frequently in the Caribbean Sea, none close to the size of Tuesday's temblor has been seen in Haiti in more than 25 years, said Dale Grant, a geophysicist at the National Earthquake Information Center near Denver. That was in June 1984, when a quake measuring 6.7 occurred about 150 miles away from Port-au-Prince."
 * : "The disaster is worse than the 1984 Haiti earthquake, and almost certainly the severest since the early part of the 19th century."
 * There isn't a lot, but there's enough that I think people will come looking for more information. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 21:13, 23 January 2010 (UTC)