Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 7

November 7
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 7, 2010

Tech1 noir



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 13:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Tech noir (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Tech noir (links to redirect • [ history] • ) Delete. Neither appears to be a valid or useful search term, and neither has a significant edit history. PC78 (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hobbayne Primary School



 * 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 * The result of the discussion was No longer applicable as it's been converted to an article. It may be questionable whether its notable enough to have its own article, but that is better handled elsewhere (assuming anyone wishes to do so). -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → Ealing (links to redirect • [ history] • ) Delete. Hobbayne Primary School's address is acutualy in Hanwell, London W7 whilst the  redirect is to Ealing, London W5,  (which is only a short distance away by car). It would be better to expand its mention in the Hanwell section on schools,  as this school takes its name from an early charitable institution. Even so, I don't think  it will ever merit  a redlink. Also, I don't think its a good use of  the redirect feature. Aspro (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Hanwell, which already mentions the school. I don't understand why that would not be "a good use of the redirect feature". (As an aside, perhaps there was some confusion between Ealing and London Borough of Ealing - the school is indeed not in the former, but it is in the latter.) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think it is a bad use becuase Hanwell is not 'known' for its Hobbayne Primary School. If used at all it should be to the subsection “Schools”. Indesciminate and thoughtless use, leads to confusion such as one editor using the redirect Cuckoo Farm to suport his agument against delation of  an article without relising that Hanwell's Cockoo Farm was NOT in Colchester!  Now, just imagine redirects for every school, pub, restaurant, hill, spring, wood, park, road, etc.,  that appears in any place name article... What a mess that would create for future editors. To answer the aside: Even as a redirect to London Borough of Ealing it doesn't  appear to be helpful in any-way-whats-so-ever. --Aspro (talk) 14:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, redirect to Hanwell (recommendation changed, above). Thanks for explaining your reasoning, but I don't think Hanwell has to be 'known' for the school in order to justify a redirect. All a redirect is supposed to do is direct a reader who happens to search for a term to whatever we have on the subject. Even if that is only a mention, it will at least inform the reader of where the school is. And I really don't see any problem with the "mess" of which you speak - in what way is it a problem to have lots of redirects to things that are mentioned in articles? I admit I'm not an expert on redirect policy, so is there any policy that says we shouldn't have lots of such redirects? (Btw, my aside was not meant to suggest a redirect to London Borough of Ealing). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Retarget to to Hanwell. Mostly primary schools are nn and  mentioning them in the article for their locality is the consensus. The way forward is to expand the content not making the school harder to find by deleting the redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of schools in Ealing and add to list, per usual WP:London precedent. MRSC (talk) 17:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is not a good idea redirecting to a list rather than to a page where the is substantive information. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep There is no case for deletion as, apart from all the other possibilities, there's also London Borough of Ealing which is the relevant LEA. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Original author who created the original stub which was redirected has recreated this as a slightly expanded article. I didn't think primary schools were considered notable, but I guess we can deal with that when this RfD concludes (and I'm not sure how that will happen now that it's no longer a redirect). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment:If the new article creator is willing to dig deep into the history of the school's origins as well, then that would to my mind achieve notability. The Hobbayne charity set it up in I think in the 15c which makes it over 500 years old.  That beats many other notable schools for that reason alone.  There is bound to be some rich material held in  Ealing's  Central Library Local History Department. It is not difficult to get an appointment to view their stuff. However, if the text  is just going to be copied almost verbatim from what little history appears the web, then it will be appearing on AfD. --Aspro (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Golden age of general relativity



 * 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 The result was Keep. Materialscientist (talk) 08:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I reccomend deletion of this redirect. There is no "Golden age of general relativity", and is therefore an unsupported made-up WP:MADEUP term. It is WP:OR. This redirect is not an established term, for common usage or notable usage. It could have the effect of being a neologism WP:NEO. According to searches in google, google scholar, google books, and even Kip Thorne's book this term is not used. Even searching a couple of library databases results in nothing regarding this term Steve Quinn (talk) 01:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * → History of general relativity (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  —Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - this term is used, from time time, for example. However, around 1,000 hits per month show that it is a well used search term. Anyone using this search and getting to the target will be looking for the history of general relativity| and won't be surprised by the target. It should be remembered that redirects are simply search aids and do not need to be technically correct. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Pertaining to the link provided by Bridgeplayer (above):
 * There is one publisher which uses it in this manner. And this publisher is reprinting from this Wikipedia article, and placing it in the book. This is a Webster's publication, and there are four of them. The [WP] in brackets means this is from Wikipedia. Not only that it is from this former article, which cited no sources to back up this terminology.  So this using a Wikipedia neologism article as a source, in the first place, being reprinted in four Webster's quotations books. These books are sourcing this former article as if it were a reliable source. Also, this is a perfect example of why original research, POV ideas, someone's good ideas, and etc., etc. are not reccomended in guidelines and policies.   Steve Quinn (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment on pages two and three of this search term at Google Books other Webster books with different titles may also be listed - yet these also are using this former article as a reliable source for this entery in their book. Steve Quinn (talk) 03:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, per comments by myself and others at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics. 10 seconds on Google Scholar finds this 1982 paper that uses the term; I've heard it enough that I'm sure many others exist. Editors in the WT:PHYS thread have claimed that Kip Thorn's famous book (Black Holes and Time Warps) brought it into popular jargon. If a page reference can be found to the book's use of the term, that'd be an excellent addition to a reference section also. IMO the deletion nomination (and widespread removal of the term from Wikipedia) was made without any reasonable attempt at due diligence first (given how quickly the 1982 paper came up, at minimum). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I found the same ambiguous source on Google Scholar as well, within ten seconds, before User:Christopher Thomas above (see my comments on WikiProject Physics talk). Also, there are no other apparent sources on Google Scholar that use this term, only this one ambiguoua aource.   Steve Quinn (talk) 04:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What attempts at discussion did you make before the merge and scrubbing of the term? Did you ask any of the relativity specialists at WT:PHYS if they'd heard of the term first? Did you check the Kip Thorne reference suggested by User:TimothyRias after I brought the issue to WT:PHYS? A quick search turned up with quite a few secondary references to it when I looked for it. Investigate, _discuss_, _then_ make sweeping changes. I don't fault your intentions; I fault your procedure. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the Kip Thorne references are about "Golden Age of black hole theory." (one says 1964 to 1974). This is basically what I have been talking about. The search term "golden age of general relativity" leads to other references, mostly not that phrase. Regarding Kip Thorne references:, , ,. Here is some sort of encyclopedia article pertaining to General relativity. . This is just bibliographic and summary information . And there is still the other reference on the Project talk page which alludes to the fact that we may currently be in a golden age of general relativity. Next, might be called "History of mathematical general relativity" in the introduction .  Steve Quinn (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is one which refers to "golden age of quantum mechanics" . So please stop with the critical commentary about my competency pertaining to ferreting out reliable sources in the edit history, and about what you are supposed to think - also in the edit history. I have used the link you provided, and it has not supported your assertions so far. I reccomend slowing down a bit. Steve Quinn (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is the book itself Black holes and time warps: Einstein's outrageous legacy with 21 hits ("golden age") refering to "Golden age of theoretical black hole research". Chapter 7, in fact, has the title "The Golden Age" (page 258), but again this refers to theoretical black hole resarch, not general relativity. Steve Quinn (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep the term is at least in common enough use to warrant a redirect. Suggest that this is a case of WP:SNOW.TimothyRias (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. A redirect page for a commonly-searched term does not need to satisfy notability guidelines - it just needs to be a likely search term. As it has so many hits, it does indeed appear to be a common search term, and History of general relativity seems like a good target to me. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't see how this is a case of WP:SNOW when the fact that this is a made-up term becomes more and more apparent. According to searches in google, google scholar, google books, and even Kip Thorne's book this term is not used. Even searching a couple of library databases results in nothing regarding this term.  Steve Quinn (talk) 18:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep not harmful and at least several sources exist (e.g. 10.1007/BF00756060) with this phrase. --Kkmurray (talk) 21:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)