Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 20

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

Forest Hill Park (disambiguation)



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 18:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * → Forest Hill Park (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Unnecessary redirect, Forest Hill Park is already a disambiguation page, and this is just a redirect to it. Nobody searches for Forest Hill Park, sees it on the search box, and then decides to add (disambiguation) to the search just in case. Shadowjams (talk) 02:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * keep as a perfectly valid . It is not at all unlikely for people wanting information about a topic they think is unlikely to be the primary topic, but when they do not know what disambiguator or alternative title will be used, to search for topic (disambiguation) as that is almost guaranteed to put them one click away from the article they want. Don't forget that people search for Wikipedia articles in various ways, not just from the search box. Firefox users (and possibly users of other browsers too, I don't know) can set up shortcuts to search from the url bar, in my case typing "wp " into the url bar will take me to the Wikipedia page at . Thryduulf (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep it as it redirects (properly) to a disambiguation page. Note also User:WildBot. B.Wind (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, does no harm sitting there, and having disambig pages sitting to point towards their proper location can be useful for users utilising tools to repair disambiguation in articles, and as pointed out above is a recommendation from WildBot. --Taelus (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redirects from "Foo (disambiguation)" to the disambiguation page for "Foo" do no harm and some good; in particular they allow explicitly linking to disambiguation pages where that is appropriate, and they improve the search autosuggestion feature by documenting that a disambiguation page is available. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hot news



 * 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 retarget to International News Service v. Associated Press. JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * → Misappropriation (links to redirect • [ history] • )

The topic is not mentioned at the target, which is a rather broad subject. It is my opinion that this should be a redlink for now, and ultimately an article.  N Y  Kevin  @116, i.e. 01:46, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, "Hot News" is a specific tort and not mentioned in the redirect. The redirect seems to be trying to equate the Hot News doctrine with the tort of "misappropriation" when in fact it is not recognized in most places as a tort at all (I only know of one where it is).69.59.100.201 (talk) 03:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 *  Retarget to Associated Press , where the 90-year-old policy is discussed. If a standalone article is desired, the redirect can be easily overwritten, with or without the help of WP:Requested articles. B.Wind (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * comment the section is actually Associated Press (note capital "N"), but I don't see much discussion about anything in that section. All that is currently there is single paragraph about a January 2008 allegation of copyright infringement that was settled out of court. The section does not mention "hot news" other than in the section header. Thryduulf (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Thryduulf, for the correction about the header. The section can be expanded easily as a Google search of "Hot news" "Associated Press" has thousands of hits, many of them to reliable sources documenting the history of the "Hot news" policy originating in the United States Supreme Court's International News Service v. Associated Press decision in 1918. In fact, I wouldn't object to stubifying the nominated redirect to cover this decision as it has recently re-emerged in current U.S. case law, but a retarget to either the AP article or an article on the decision itself would be more appropriate. B.Wind (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I was writing the above comment, I noticed that International News Service v. Associated Press, the article on the 1918 decision, exists. This I change my recommendation to retarget to International News Service v. Associated Press and tag for expansion as the decision's relevance to today has been recently increasing lately (including the writing of editorial opinions in major U.S. newspapers over the past week). B.Wind (talk) 21:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)