Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 16

December 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 16, 2011

Cocaine (Eminem song)



 * 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 until it is actually produced. Ruslik_ Zero 14:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Eminem (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Misleading, as the redirected article says nothing about the song. In fact, I typed in "Cocaine" into the search (actually looking for the Eric Clapton song) and clicked on it. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: it's all OK to redirect from song to the author. Why do You consider this misleading? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because it suggests that there's information about this song (which, if I understood it correctly, wasn't even produced). Type "Cocai" in the search bar and the second suggestion is this song already. --The Evil IP address (talk) 10:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's just because you have typed it in already. I get Cocaine (song) which is different. Rich Farmbrough, 01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Delete: Apparently this song was never produced, and is not mentioned at Eminem, Eminem discography, or Recovery (Eminem album), where it was supposed to be or something like that. TimBentley (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per TimBentley; bad redirect needs to go away. It's of no help and will only confuse. &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per TimBentley's findings.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand the song seems to have been leaked widely, unless I'm misreading something. SO I'm surprised we don't mention it. Rich Farmbrough, 01:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC).


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Duff (d.967)



 * 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. (NAC) Armbrust Talk to me  about my editsreview  23:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Dub, King of Scotland (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This was speedily deleted as an allegedly implausible redirect. Following Deletion review/Log/2011 December 7, the matter is referred to this board for resolution. This is a procedural listing, so I express no opinion on the merits.  Sandstein  17:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, the king is sometimes known as Duff and he did die in 967. No reason to delete. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  05:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, no one except the creator of that redirect is going to look for a redirect with a disambiguator with an error in the disambiguator. He is listed at Duff, which is correct. None of the other 11 redirects to the article has a disambiguator, and we normally don't redirect with disambiguators anyway: having one with an error in it (no space between "d." and "967") makes it a truly implausible one, and a normal deletion candidate. Fram (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think it's plausible. Dub was commonly known as Duff and "(d.967)" seems as useful a disambiguation as any (perhaps Duff (Scottish king) would also be useful). At the DRV I brought up that it gets a few page views per day, but Fram claimed that those views were only from bots (my technical knowledge is limited, so I'm not sure if that's correct or not). Moving on to Fram's points here: it is not an "error" not to have a space – yes, it is our house style to have a space there, but the majority of our readers are unfamiliar with the MoS and probably don't care if there is a space or not. Also, if that is one of your major concerns, would you support a redirect at Duff (d. 967)? To your second point, we have literally thousands of redirects that have disambiguations and I'm unsure why you're under the assumption that it is a Bad Thing™. Jenks24 (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation is a typically internal Wikipedia thing. Readers will normally not search for anything using a disambiguator. This makes redirects with disambiguators basically useless for the reader. The only exception I know of are redirects like John Smith (disambiguation), which are created for a technical reason, not to help the reader. The other major group of redirects with disambiguators are remnants of page moves, which could be deleted at the time of move, but are often older than that option. As for your question about the redirect with the added space: while I think it would be pointless to create it, I would have less of a problem with it. If someone would nominate such a redirect for deletion, I would still support deletion though, but I wouldn't speedy delete it. Fram (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is neither a new nor harmful redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 01:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC).


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Talk:Tampa Bay Rowdies



 * 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 of this discussion was wrong forum. The folks at requested moves got it covered. Non admin closure. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  05:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Talk:Tampa Bay Rowdies (disambiguation) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Per consensus, Tampa Bay Rowdies (2012) should be moved to this title. I started the move, but seem to have fallen into disambiguation hell... Zeng8r (talk) 10:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: it's a wrong place here for such requests. Please act per WP:RM instead. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Punk metal



 * 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. The redirect is confusing and therefore harmful. No suitable target exists. Ruslik_ Zero 14:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Punk rock (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Does not exist and is not the same as the redirected page. Jamcad01 (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Its a likely search and if the genre does not exist having the redirect makes the recreation of a non-notable article less likely as editors may feel it is covered in the main article.-- SabreBD  (talk)  09:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: If a person searches it up and nothing appears then it will likely mean they will realize it does not exist. When it get's redirected to Punk Rock they will waste a lot of time trying to look for info. Jamcad01 (talk) 09:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: high hit rate shows it's useful, so it should stay. The current target seems adequate to me. P.S.: Jamcad01, if it's not the same as punk rock, then it is something else, so it exists. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reason as Jamcad01 - they are redirected to a page that could be irrelevant to what they're looking for and could waste time searching for info. It'd be better for there to be just no page if it doesn't exist on the encyclopedia. -- andy4789 ★ ·  (talk?   contribs?)  MerryXmas! 18:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete to avoid confusion.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep it can be sent somewhere more appropriate, discussing genres if necessary. Rich Farmbrough, 01:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC).


 * Like Where? --Jamcad01 (talk) 07:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.