Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 22

February 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 22, 2011

International Society



 * 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 with a strong recommendation to convert to a disambiguation page.  Rossami (talk) 00:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many international societies - when searching for one, it is annoying to be sent to this article, which is not about a society at all. Maproom (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → English school of international relations theory
 * Disambiguate, there are at least a dozen articles about " Internationalk Society" on Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. The target article describes a school of thought similar to the Chicago school of economics and asserts that "International Society" is a synonym for Liberal realism (another redirect to that page).  No objection to an overwrite with disambiguation content, though, as long as this target remain prominent on the list.  Rossami (talk) 14:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate an obviously vague term. Disambiguation can list the English school of international relations theory as a possible meaning. — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 19:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate very vague. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dab'ed although it could use more expansion but at least it's a start.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Track Days Spain



 * 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 all. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

All of these redirects should be deleted as they are all designed to promote the circuit. Regarding the article, that can be saved. I am aware that these could have been speedied but I wasn't sure so I thought it would be easier to deal with them all at once. Warning: I have requested that Monteblanco race circuit is moved to Circuito Monteblanco, the official name of the circuit. mspete 93  23:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * → Monteblanco race circuit (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Monteblanco race circuit (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Monteblanco race circuit (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Monteblanco race circuit (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Monteblanco race circuit (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Monteblanco race circuit (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Monteblanco race circuit (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Monteblanco race circuit (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Monteblanco race circuit (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Monteblanco race circuit (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * It is not a reason to delete redirects. Ruslik_ Zero 11:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

Betsy Harris



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 12:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → Terri Nunn (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete. The redirect in effect asserts the truth of the unsubstantiated rumor that the musician had worked as an erotic model/Penthouse Pet, a claim excluded from the article for lack of reliable sourcing. Can/should this be speedied? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Delete you should not have a redirect to a rumor of such a thing, not at all. Neither should the rumor have any place in her BLP either. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is definitely not speedy-deletable and arguable whether it is regular-deletable. Redirects are not endorsements of the title.  (If they were, we'd have to purge off all the redirects-from-misspellings and that would be a huge disservice to our readers.)  Neither is reliable sourcing a relevant standard for redirects.  The relevant question is "does the redirect help or harm potential readers?"  The allegation of harm in this case would have to be based upon WP:BLP but the subject is a musician notable enough to deserve an encyclopedia article and counts under the BLP rules as a "public figure" (and while we must still be respectful of the rights of public figures, we are held to a lower standard than for content about private citizens).  The redirect is from a neutral name with no intrinsic connection to the erotic model allegation.  Taken together, the allegation of harm seems to me very weak.  On the question of helpfulness, I would ask about the prominence of the rumor.  If the rumor has become notable in its own right, then the redirect should stay if only to debunk it.  A google search on "Terri Nunn" in proximity to "Betsy Harris" returned a significant number of hits not derivative of Wikipedia.  While I found none reliable enough to justify an assertion of the alias in the article, they do appear sufficient to substantiate a one-liner about the rumor itself (especially if you included her denial of the rumor).  And that would be a sufficient basis to keep the redirect.  Rossami (talk) 01:06, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the assertion Terri Nunn=Betsy Harris can't be reliably sourced, there is no basis either for a mention in her bio or a redirect. Jonathanwallace (talk) 17:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete By leaving this redirect up, anyone who searches for this subject's name will be automatically sent to Nunn's page, thus giving the false rumor automatic credence. We can't count on someone searching for the subject to read all the way through the article to find the one line where the rumor is denied. Delete, "do no harm." Dayewalker (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Gay Pride Day



 * 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 Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → Gay pride (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Makes more sense to redirect to Gay and Lesbian Pride Month. Probably pretty uncontroversial, but better to discuss anyway C T J F 8 3  23:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Your recommendation doesn't look especially controversial to me at all. Be bold.  But even if it were controversial, the first place to start discussing a proposed retargetting is the talk page.  No need to bring it here.  Rossami (talk) 00:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mai waifu



 * 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 consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:21, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → List of Azumanga Daioh characters (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Unclear redirect, no legitimate alternative targets as the link is a slang for "my wife". —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment - The target of the redirect does specifically mention the term and claims (without providing a source) that a character in the show was the source of the slang term. I think the redirect is probably appropriate as long as that claim remains in the article, but I'm not sure that information should remain in the article unless it can be sourced. Calathan (talk) 21:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) The article asserts that "Mai waifu ... has since become a catchphrase among anime fans referring to a female character they find appealing." If that statement is true, then the redirect serves to show readers the etymology of a phrase that has passed beyond the immediate in-universe context and would be an appropriate use of a redirect. The claim was added to the article on 12 Oct 2008 by an anonymous editor and has not been challenged in that time. A cursory google search on the phrase does seem to substantiate the claim. Since the content appears primarily lexical, my first preference would be a soft redirect to mai waifu. Unfortunately, that page does not yet exist. I suppose that leaves me at keep until the wiktionary page is created then retarget. Rossami (talk) 21:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete "my wife" rendered in Engrish is not appropriate for Azumanga Daioh. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The Karachi City Rockers



 * 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 (non-admin closure) → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four  ♣ ← 23:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → Alien Kulture (links to redirect • [ history] • )

It has been claimed at Talk:The Karachi City Rockers that this is an alternative name sometimes used by the band Alien Kulture, but I can find no reliable evidence that this is the case, so I suggest that the redirect is deleted. Cordless Larry (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak keep, googling for "Karachi City Rockers" -wikipedia gives five results, all in the form "Alien Kulture (The Karachi City Rockers)" and so the claim appears to be correct. However with only five hits (three from youtube, one forum and one Spanish language site that doesn't contain the term (probably the google hit comes from a link to one of the youtube videos)) it's not widely used. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this started as a short article which said only that it was a name used by the band. I turned it into a redirect, because this gave some confirmation. Not widely used maybe, but redirects are cheap. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Google results are all videos on websites such as Youtube (i.e. self-published and not reliable sources). Redirects may be cheap but I don't think Wikipedia should be effectively endorsing this alternative name without reliable sources being available. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A redirect does not endorse the the alternative name any more than a redirect from a misspelling endorses that spelling. The key question for redirects is "Do they help readers find the article they want?" and in this case the answer is yes. Thryduulf (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

List of plagiarised Bollywood films



 * 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 those with history and Delete those without. Ruslik_ Zero 12:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


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

There is no such list at the target, and there's not likely to be one in the future. There are a large number of redirects to this article containing variations of "Bollywood" and "plagiarism" that are not being nominated here, and any of them is a better search term than these redirects that falsely imply the presence of a list of plagiarized films. Note that these redirects do have some history as previous attempts to write such a list. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * While there is no list in the Plagerism section of the Bollywood article, there are a number of chosen examples. It appears that at least some of the content on the original list may have been merged into that prose section.  Keep primarily to preserve the history and secondarily to continue to preempt the re-creation of these unwanted lists.  (Note that the number of redirects here are the result of a multi-step pagemove, not necessarily independent list creations.)  Tag with unprintworthy or other tag to suppress their inclusion in the search prefill.  Rossami (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

from January 19th. Please leave new comments below this line. → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 23:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * I think we need to keep at least "Partial List of Movies Plagiarised by Bollywood" and "List of Bollywood Movies inspired from English Movies", since these have relevant history. The other two were, as Rossami suggests, apparently created in the process of moving that first one and so lack relevant history. I would have no objection to either keeping them to forestall recreation or to deleting them as less-likely search terms. Cnilep (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. While the list does not exist, there should not be redirects purporting to link to it. Maproom (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)