Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 5

April 5
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 5, 2011

Astrurian



 * 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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


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

Typo. R3 rejected since it was created 6 months ago. So we have to delete it through RfD. Magioladitis (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to Asturian, for which it is a plausible and seemingly not-uncommon common typo. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget-to Asturian per above, plausable typo.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget - to Asturian. I deleted the page when it was redirected to Asturcón, but it seems like a relatively common typo for Asturian.  ceran  thor 02:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Phantom types



 * 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. If anyone wants to convert Phantom type to an article and retarget this there, feel free. But as long as it is redirected to this target, then targeting the plural there is acceptable. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → Generalized algebraic data type (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Titles generally are singular (WP:SINGULAR in WP:TITLE) and redirects to same place as Phantom type. Could perhaps go CSD A6 but then would be told "it is not an article". Simply for practical purposes note nothing links here. Si Trew (talk) 12:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Target is not appropriate (needs its own article), but plural forms are certainly suitable as names for redirects. —Ruud 13:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Phantom type should be an article rather than a redirect? If so, when that article is created this title should be retargetted there. Until such time, keep as is but place a note about this redirects existence at talk:Phantom type and talk:Generalized algebraic data type. Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Molly windman



 * 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. It's unverifiable so it goes. People searching on it is not a reason to trump our policies. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → Meme Molly (links to redirect • [ history] • )

No strong confirmation that this is the subjects name - see the discussion on Talk:Meme Molly Off2riorob (talk) 09:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * From the talk page discussion and my own quick searches, it appears that it cannot be verified in reliable sources that this is the subjects real name. Normally I would not hesitate to recommend deletion in such circumstances, particularly as it is reported on the talk page that she does not want her full name to be made public (and I have no reason to doubt this). However, the title is getting a lot of hits, so I'm not 100% certain that a red link is the best thing that to present to readers - but no better target is readily apparent. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Rodeo in art and media



 * 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 (target refined). -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


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

Delete improbable redirect, final removal of a content fork created by a sockpuppet, part of much larger cleanup, don't know why it failed speedy, but no need for it now. Montanabw (talk) 05:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * It failed speedy-deletion because the reasons given didn't make sense. An edit summary alleged that it was a copyright violation but if so, it is a copy of something Google can't find.  (There are many exact matches but the timing shows them to be derivative of Wikipedia, not the other way around.)  The CSD template for criterion A3 (lack of content) was applied to the page but only after turning it into a redirect.  Redirects are explicitly excluded from criterion A3.  The edit summary also argued that the redirect is implausible (which would be CSD R3) but the page was created back in early 2009 making the title ineligible under the "recently created" clause of that criterion.  The only arguments that hold up are that it was a content fork (and redirects are a recommended way to resolve such forks) and that the first draft was created by a user who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet.  The indef-block applied to the account, however, does not match the WP:ANI recommendation (which was for a mere 14 days and limited by topic).  I am quite confused by the history of the dispute but definitely understand why no reasonable administrator would accept that as a speedy-deletion nomination. To the current situation, I'm going to ignore the history.  It was a fork.  Redirects solve forks and preempt their re-creation.  The title is not in the way of anything else.  The title is not obviously harmful or confusing.  It should probably point to the In mainstream culture section (and the fact that such a section exists is an argument for the plausibility of the redirect).  Without a good reason to delete, that leaves me at keep.  Rossami (talk) 06:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and refine target to Rodeo per Rossami's analysis. Given the content of the section, I can easily see this being expanded to a sub article (or possibly two) in the future. While such article(s) will probably not have this title (hence why I'm not recommending tagging with ), it would be a very logical search term. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment OK, so I've never tried all that hard to delete a redirect before, so please don't decline it just because I have not figured out how to do these right. (I like to write articles, I don't like to do this stuff). So here's the page showing you the extent of the problem: Contributor copyright investigations/ItsLassieTime, this sock, via multiple accounts, modified hundreds of articles, I'm just taking one chunk (the rodeo ones) and trying to do some cleanup.  When I restored the content fork, I made it a redirect at the time, but now, having been the one who made it into a redirect in the first place (then forgot about it), I really don't think it's needed at all, and was trying to finish the job I started.  The bottom line is that the implausible redirects created by this sock need not clutter bandwidth.  No one would ever search for this particular title, and when it got broken out, the consensus of the legitimate editors working on the huge tendentious mess this sock caused was to put things back pretty much the way they were before this person came in and screwed up so many things.  (and yep, the sock filed an ANI on me, which I won, and in doing so helped bust the sock when they edited the same conversation with me under two different names).  Anyway, why would it make any sense to keep something when it will never be searched on?  However, I'm also not going to really fight it one way or the other, I just was trying to do something helpful in the housekeeping department.   Montanabw (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirects are so cheap that there is actually disbenefit to deleting them when they are doing no harm. Regardless of why a redirect was created, if it is performing a useful function (which could be as as search target, aiding accidental linking, preservation of attribution history, actively or passively discouraging forks and other articles the community has decided it doesn't want, or several other possible things) then we generally do not delete it. In this case, my comments about a possible sub article relate not to the present time, but to the future when there is more information than currently. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)