Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 11

March 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 11, 2011

Vaguely plausible ethnic group redirects



 * 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete These redirects are confusing at best, and original research at worst. They represent potentially plausible migration patterns, but there's no evidence that the migrants represented by the redirect title are actually considered part of the group discussed at the target article. And in any case, the target articles don't discuss such migration. cab (call) 10:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Han Chinese (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Macanese people (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Shanghainese people (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Singaporean (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Malaysian Chinese (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Thai Chinese (links to redirect • [ history] • ) (added 15:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • ) (added 15:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • ) (added 15:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • ) (added 15:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • ) (added 15:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * → Malaysian Chinese (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Ethnic Chinese in Brunei (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • ) (added 15:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese American (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → British Chinese (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Delete - cannot see any value in these at all. Deb (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete since the topics are not discussed at the destination articles. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Confusing, probably misleading OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete pfff! That's a lot of different varities of "Chinese" people. You must have had a really exhausting time looking these redirects up! Mar4d (talk) 14:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete:some of these are OR, the rest are similarly not useful.AerobicFox (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Completely implausible ethnic group redirects



 * 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Delete. These redirects are confusing at best, and original research at worst. They represent grossly implausible migrations. The target articles don't discuss such migration, and such content couldn't even be added because there are no sources describing that these ethnic groups migrated in such a fashion. cab (call) 10:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • ) (added 15:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Koreans in Indonesia (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • ) (added 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * → Chinese Brazilian (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • ) (added 15:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC))
 * → Chinese Indonesians (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Delete - cannot see any value in these at all. Deb (talk) 12:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as implausible searches. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The 'Chinese' ones look like a breach of NPOV, in addition to being confusing, misleading OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: many things wrong with these.AerobicFox (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Assburger



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → Asperger syndrome (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I see this as offensive and it should be deleted. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 10:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep again. Previously discussed on 2007 Jan 23, 2007 Aug 21, 2008 Dec 13, DRV'd on 2009 Jan 23 and discussed again on 2009 Apr 29.  The consensus over time is clear that this homophone misspelling is an appropriate use of redirect.  Rossami (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is NOT a misspelling. "Asberger" and "Aspberger" are appropriate misspellings. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 14:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep-This is easily a conceivable misspelling. Saying it is "not a misspelling" because it may be offensive is, in all honesty, ludicrous.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep- Just because it is offensive to an individual or group doesn't mean that naive young people wouldn't misspell it this way. 129.137.107.176 (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: reminds me of a commercial featuring a man in an interview accidently referring to the interviewer, Mr.Dumass, as Mr. Dumb ass, instead of Mr. Doomas, because he was unsure of how to pronounce it. Anyways this is a plausible search term, and it is unlikely to offend those that do not come across it.AerobicFox (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

HMS Titanic



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → RMS Titanic (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Deletion, Titanic was never commissioned into the Royal Navy. Mjroots (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Whatlinkshere and google on the exact phrase both demonstrate that this is a common mistake.  Redirects are explicitly not endorsements of a title.  Rather, they are navigational aids to help readers understand and correct misunderstandings just like this.  Rossami (talk) 13:50, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above.--22:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per initial keep.AerobicFox (talk) 07:19, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lol aids



 * 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 speedy delete WP:CSD vandalism. JohnCD (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


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

Delete. Not a plausible search term. Shovan Luessi (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete. This redirect constitutes vandalism. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

William Garretson



 * 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 Charles Manson. JohnCD (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)


 * → Charles Manson (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I believe this redirect is completely wrong. Garretson has no relationship in anyway to Charles Marson or to his "family". He was living behind (?) Sharon Tate's house when the murders occurred, and had no involvement on them, either. I suggest either redirecting to Sharon Tate's murder section, or deleting it. Diego Grez (talk) 03:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * The deleted history asserts that he was more than merely a neighbor - that he was the caretaker of the property and a witness to the crime who discussed the crime in several public forums including at least one television interview. I am inclined to agree with the current consensus that he does not meet Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria, especially given the history of BLP problems.  The redirect appears to have successfully preempted the recreation of the content, so keep the redirect.  (But, no, there is not sufficient consensus to support salting the title.)  Rossami (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Garretson is not related to Manson's community. The redirect is wrong, at least send it somewhere logical. Diego Grez (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete-He's clearly not involved in the murders and it seems libelous to keep this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.107.176 (talk)
 * Refine-Target the redirect at Charles Manson, the portion of the article that mentions Garretson. The redirect's show enough hits that people are clearly searching for it, but a general redirect to the Manson article does look pretty bad.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Charles Manson per above.AerobicFox (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)