Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 20

January 20
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 20, 2011

Punkalele



 * 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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable search term, not mentioned in target article to warrant a redirect. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  20:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Punk rock (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Delete per nom. After searching Google Web, News Archive and Books, the only remotely relevant information which I found (but cannot link to because the site is blacklisted) is about a YouTube personality called UkePunk: an English musician who plays punk music on the ukelele. There is another reference to "Uke-punk" in this article in the Winnipeg Free Press, but the "Uke" in that instance seems to stand for "Ukrainian". -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

'60s punk



 * 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 Re-targeted to Protopunk. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense, since Punk rock only made its appearance in the 1970s. The low traffic stats show that these are incorrect, implausible redirects. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  20:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Punk rock (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Punk rock (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Punk rock (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * The pagehistory shows that they originally pointed to Garage rock which did exist in the 60s (though that name had not yet been coined). In April of last year, it appears that they were repointed to a joke page.  User:Mhiji apparently found them months later but rather than revert the joke, pointed them to Punk rock.  I'm not sure that Garage rock is the ideal target nor am I convinced that garage punk (a link that showed in the history of one of them) is much better but either is better than the current target.  Regardless, I think the redirect can be kept if retargetted appropriately.  Rossami (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but if no target is specified by the end of this nomination that would not be a valid reason to keep it. WP:R and WP:R still applies. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  06:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget '60s punk (0 errors) and 60s punk (1 error: punctuation) to Protopunk, which provides readers with links to both Punk rock and Garage rock; delete 60s Punk (2 errors: punctuation, capitalization). -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Administration notice Board



 * 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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

These were previously CNRs before they were retargeted by or some other user. I suggest reversion; these were receiving many hits before being retargeted to an ambiguous title. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  20:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Bulletin board (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Bulletin board (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Bulletin board (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Bulletin board (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Bulletin board (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Bulletin board (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Bulletin board (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Bulletin board (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Bulletin board (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Bulletin board (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Strong keep the various spellings and capitalisations, etc of "noticeboard", Neutral (for now) about the others. "Noticeboard" and similar is going to be a very likely search term for the encyclopaedia article, the project page is not going to be the most likely thing people are looking for - note the lead sentence starts "A bulletin board (pinboard, pin board or notice board in British English)". The self-referential hatnote at bulletin board is the proper way to help people who are looking for the project pages. The 2+ word titles are I think less likely, but I need to think more on them before I'm certain what I think we should do with them. Thryduulf (talk)
 * keep' "notice boards" and variant spellings, as they are a form of bulletin board. 65.93.13.210 (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all and revert to the original targets. From what I can tell, the term "noticeboard" is more closely associated with the Wikipedia dispute monitoring process than the general concept of a "bulletin board".  Readers looking for that word are far more likely to be looking for the Wikipedia pages, in my opinion.  (The hatnote on bulletin board is a good backstop but not as ideal as a direct link.)  Rossami (talk) 04:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that I have not advocated for deletion in this group nomination at all. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  06:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, in British English at least, "noticeboard" is the normal way of referring to a bulletin board (in the physical sense covered by this article and often electronic ones as well), "bulletin board" primarily refers to the electronic boards. on a google.co.uk search for noticeboard the first 36 hits are for various companies supplying noticeboards (e.g. office supply firms) and various internet message boards. The 37th is the Wikipedia article bulletin board, the 38 and 39th are internet message boards. There are no Wikipedia: space pages in the top 100 hits. All this shows that Wikipedia project space is not the primary topic here, and we should not be redirecting users looking for articles into project space - the number one reason for CNRs being frowned upon. "notice board" and "noticeboard" both also have incomming article space links that are intended to point at the bulletin board article, not project space. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * "...two great peoples separated by a common language." I suppose the hatnotes will have to do on the undifferentiated "noticeboard" variants.  The Administration link, however, only appears to be used in the context of the Wikipedia process and I suspect the two Regionals and the List of regional links are the same.  Rossami (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I remain neutral about the administration and regionals. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the various spellings and capitalizations of "notice board"; the hatnote at the top of the target article will direct editors who are searching for Wikipedia notice boards. Delete Regional noticeboards as practically unused (hits per month in 2010: mean = 5.5, median = 4, mode = 3). Neutral on the rest, noting that Administration notice Board and List of regional notice boards both received less than 30 hits per month, on average (c. 15–20). -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Anni Dewani



 * 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 Re-targeted to Murder of Anni Dewani. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Slum tourism (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Tasteless and pointless redirect. Anni Dewani was woman who was murdered in South Africa on her honeymoon, allegedly at her husband's instigation. There is no reason to link her name to "Slum tourism".  Wasell ( T ) 16:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete please - no mention of the subject in the article, a confusing, incorrect, and as above apparently tasteless redirect. I see that the subject was once mentioned in the article. Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete (or soft redirect to Wikinews) This still gets quite a lot of search hits, so it's natural for there to be something at this title. However there is no good target for it as we don't apparently have an article about her, her murder, her husband or the murderer. If an article is written that we could retarget (or recreate) this to then that would seem like a good thing. Perhaps we should soft-redrirect this to a Wikinews article about her? Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Murder of Anni Dewani now that this article has been written. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find no evidence that this person meets generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies regardless of the circumstances of her death.  And unlike other non- or quasi-notable redirects, there is no history behind this one.  Rossami (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced that this incident meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion standards. It would be nice if we lived in a world where murder was sufficiently unusual to merit an encyclopedia article but we don't.  Over a thousand murders are committed every day.  Nor do I accept the standard that lots of news coverage equals encyclopedic content.  Modern media is badly susceptible to bias (for example, in favor of photogenic victims), the self-fulfilling prophecy that "it must be notable because those other news orgs covered it" and the slow-news-day syndrome.  (By the way, I am even more unconvinced about the Yeates example below.)  Regardless, an article has been created so this is now a matter for AfD to consider.  As long as the article is kept, this redirect to it is proper.  Rossami (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect - firstly, can I thank Wasell  for advising me of this discussion. Secondly, there was mention of Mrs Dewani's shooting on the page for slum tourism, but an editor decide to remove it. Thirdly, if Mrs Dewani's shooting has coverage in two countries and involves diplomtaic discussions, then if this case doesn't meet WP:BIO as stated by Rossami, then I can't see how the highly localised coverage of the Murder of Jo Yeates would meet WP:BIO either. The answer is that they both do. I had actually started a suitable article focusing on the murder case, which can be found here, and which I will put into production today. Once that is completed, the redirect can go to that article, which I suggest is named Murder of Anni Dewani. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to new article per Trident13.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronald John O'Sullivan



 * 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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Ronnie O& (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Misleading, there is no information about a "Ronald John O'Sullivan". Armbrust Talk  Contribs  13:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete without prejudice. Ronald John O'Sullivan is Ronnie O'Sullivan's father, and a somewhat controversial figure. There was an extensive, apparently sourced (I only took a superficial look at the old revisions), section about him (the father) in the persona life section of the son's article (the ridrect points at thsi section), but all mention has since been removed from the article (there is no mention that he even exists at present). In November 2009 a separate, unsourced article about the father was created by an editor apparently known for "making erroneous edits to snooker articles". The article was not apparently copied from anything in the son's article (style and tone were different, son's article had sources father's didn't. The father's article was a big BLP problem, being unsourced and negative in tone, and so it was stubbed to just "Ronald John O'Sullivan is the father of snooker player Ronnie O'Sullivan." (20 days after creation). This was then prodded for "No independent notability." two minutes later by a different editor. Approximately 15 hours after being tagged, an IP user removed the prod tag without explanation, a different IP editor replaced it with the present redirect about one hour after that. Talk:Ronnie O'Sullivan is a discussion, marked as "unresolved" but apparently with a consensus that information about his father could be added if appropriately sourced, but this has not happened yet. Iff information about his father is added to his son's article then I would have no objection to a new redirect being added at this title, if editors think it worthy. It seems possible that a sourced article about Ronald John O'Sullivan could be written, but I take no view on whether he would meet the notability guidelines. In any event, an article or redirect at this title should be a new creation, as it is not wise to have an unsourced BLP hanging around the article history when it will be of no use for either article creation or attribution history. Thryduulf (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. My first inclination was to would argue that redirects from a non-notable person to their notable family member are an efficient way to resolve the non-notable articles without the disruption of a full-fledged deletion debate and to signal to future editors that Wikipedia does not especially want an article at that title.  In this case, the pejorative content in the pagehistory outweighs those benefits.  The deletion should not, however, be used as grounds to delete a new redirect created at this title.  Rossami (talk) 04:40, 21 January 2011 (UTC)