Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 27

September 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 27, 2011

File:Heroes.PNG



 * 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, performed by Athaenara. Crispmuncher (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * → File:Huntington-Heroes.PNG (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Moved the file to a better name and resolved all redirects. Eeekster (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems like an uncontroversial formality to me: there's no need for a formal RfD. Tagged as a speedy G6. Crispmuncher (talk) 00:47, 28 September 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.


 * Was later moved to File:Huntington Heroes logo.png and currently exists there. – Athaenara  ✉  01:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Jesus phone



 * 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 although I refined it to IPhone to show the ref'ed use to the wiki visitors.  Lenticel  ( talk ) 07:05, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Delete for the following reasons: (i) the term originates with TheRegister (a tabloid news site) who like to create piss-take "funny" names for things, these names are not notable and never gain that much traction outside of TheRegister, (ii) the article does not mention the phrase "Jesus phone" at all, (iii) the specified purpose of a redirect is "to eliminate the possibility that an average user will wind up staring blankly at a "Search results 1-10 out of 378" search page instead of the article they were looking for" and I seriously doubt that someone is going to come to this site looking for information about the iPhone and think they'll find it under an article titled "Jesus phone", this isn't Uncyclopedia. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The redirect doesn't bother me, nor do I support it (it's certainly not a term I've heard of outside of Wikipedia). I just wanted to point out that this redirect was brought here twice before, the first time it was speedily deleted, the second time it was kept. I'll note that the second RfD wasn't overwhelmingly in support of the redirect, but it did mention that The Economist had commented on the term, you can see the article here. --  At am a  頭 18:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, my own searches found multiple references to the term at IntoMobile (not sure if that site is a reliable source in any way) and at least one at CNET (see here for an example). I'm not sure if any of that makes a difference but I thought I'd mention them. --  At am a  頭 18:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep There are myriad other references to the term that a quick Google finds. In the interests of brevity I've only listed the first for each site:
 * BBC
 * The Economist
 * CNN
 * The Times of India
 * The Wall Street Journal
 * Ars Technica
 * Apple Insider
 * MSNBC
 * YourDictionary.com
 * Gizmodo
 * iPhone Saviour (surely itself a Jesus phone reference)
 * The Urban Dictionary
 * I could go on more or less forever but I think I've made my point.


 * Redirects are not subject to the same neutrality and notability thresholds as articles; they are regarded as cheap and the threshold for inclusion is much lower. However, the references given above are more than are present in 99% of our articles: the threshold for retention is clearly met.  The fact that iPhone does not reference the phrase is also moot: the same is true of trouser snake and much worse terms.  USB flash drive does not reference the vast majority of more formal terms that redirect to it, nor do any articles reference the plausible typos and spelling errors that lead there.  The lack of a reference in the article simply is not relevant.  Similarly, given that there are the references above, there is a compelling case for the redirect in practice: there is a very real prospect of an isolated reference to a "Jesus phone" where it is not clear and unambiguous in context what specifically is beig referred to.


 * This is not the first time this redirect has been evaluated at RfD and I do wish that people would be more honest about their objections.  I understand and recognise that people might find this term objectionable.  It is also true that WP being uncensored is occasionally used as a defence for the indefensible.  However, the references above show that this is a term used in the wild and as such it is a legitimate redirect and not a gratuitously insulting, offensive or derogatory term in the same sense that the evil Barack Obama or that idiot the Pope might be. As such this is precisely the kind of issue that WP:UNCENSORED is intended to address: this is not being offensive for the sake of it, and we should not shy away from it because of any perceived offence. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC).


 * Keep per sources and my arguments at DrV. Hobit (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - sufficiently widely used in reliable sources to be a plausible search term. I have added a sourced reference to the article. Someone hearing the phrase 'Jesus phone' is likely to search on it to find out the meaning. Obviously it is desirable to have an explanation in the target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep clearly widely used and an obvious reference. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep User Crispmuncher argument sounds reasonable and logical to me. There is no need to delete something that is not common but still being used, that's all it matters. This is a GREAT encyclopedia, it should includes all even rare words.Trongphu (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral I don't think the encyclopaedia gains or loses much by having the redirect, however to respond to the nomination (1) I'm not sure the origination of this is that relevant, you may not find the name funny but I assume The Register continue with such because their readership do like them. Tabloid press in the UK (after which it styles itself) enjoy very wide circulation, so for nicknames etc. they'd normally be quite influential. In terms of NPOV we wouldn't look to the originating source and try to determine we don't like them so ignore it, we look to the overall subscription to the view point and weight accordingly, in terms of a redirect that weighting seems quite binary, it's either used enough or it's not, the suggestion above is that the terms has had some broader usage. (2) Don't see this as that relevant, there are many other examples like this, particular for nicknames/slang names there may not be enough independent sources to write much about the use of the term, but the term itself can still be widely used (3) I think this misses the point a little, the question is will someone see the term "Jesus phone" somewhere, wonder what that is and try and look it up. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wow. Thanks Crispmuncher for putting together that list of sources using the term. Given all that, it certainly seems like an at least somewhat likely search term. Given all that discussion, it also seems like the fact should be mentioned in the iPhone article. If that happens, we retarget the redirect to the relevant subsection of the page. — m a k o ๛  21:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have added a reference to it to IPhone. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as a useful search aid. Zickel (talk) 20:52, 5 October 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.

Reinaldo Avila da Silva



 * 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 and refine to Peter Mandelson. Ruslik_ Zero 11:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Delete -- These are two different people. The former is not notable; there is no reason even to have a redirect for this page since only one article links to it, as part of a sentence referring to Mandelson. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 13:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep -- da Silva is indeed the subject of media attention and press reports and is discussed by name in the target article with references. While looking for more information, I found a second article about some controversy over the speed of his naturalization which I added to the article. Even if I was convinced that da Silva is not notable -- although I agree it likely -- he's discussed in the press and a perfectly likely search term. That's why there is incoming traffic to the redirect. In the absence of an article on the subject, we should point readers to the article in our encyclopedia that actually does discuss the term. At the moment that is definitely Peter Mandelson in this case. Remember, WP:N/WP:BIO applies to articles, not redirects. If redirects are likely search terms and if there are good places to send people that will help answer people's questions, we can keep the redirect for the non-notable subject. — m a k o ๛  15:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep da Silva isn't notable, no, but that doesn't mean he can't be mentioned in another article on a related topic, and if a reader types in his name they should be taken to the article which has information about him, i.e. Mandelson's. The fact that not many articles link to it does not mean that it's not a plausible search term. Hut 8.5 16:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and refine target to #Personal life - the lack of notability is why a redirect is indicated rather than a standalone article. There is enough content at the target to make the redirect useful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds right. The redirect should be to the subsection where da Silva is discussed. — m a k o ๛  21:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair point, endorse retarget. Hut 8.5 21:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as a useful search aid because the Redirect term is listed in the target article. Zickel (talk) 20:54, 5 October 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.

Egregious



 * 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 Convert to a soft redirect. Ruslik_ Zero 11:15, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


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

I believe this redirect should be deleted; it is very new and has virtually no history. The target, Evil, does not remotely reflect the subtleties of the word Egregious, nor discuss the apparent apparent shift in meaning of the word over time. The equivalence to Evil discords with the definition in online dictionaries including Wiktionary. Cricobr (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep/Comment - New as it is, it is getting dozens of hits a day so I am reticent to delete it. Is there another place you think would be more appropriate than evil? One of the side effects of Wikipedia not being a dictionary is that we commonly merge similar concepts. Although I understand they are not the same concept, these seem similar enough for me. Another option would be replacing the page with  softredirect although we should only do that if we think the page is likely to be recreated. — m a k o  ๛  15:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Softredirect - I'm convinced by User:Bridgeplayer. A soft redirect, as unusual as these are, seems like the best course of action. — m a k o ๛  18:43, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - This seems like a simple situation to me. They aren't synonyms, in fact they're not even close. Not only aren't they close, but "egregious" can also mean the opposite of evil (as in something being "egregiously good"). It actually means "flagrant" or "conspicuous", it's just usually implied to mean "egregiously bad". The redirect is simply inaccurate and misleading. If it is getting so many hits, a soft redirect to Wiktionary might be a good idea (Wiktionary also points out that it doesn't always mean "bad"). --  At am a  頭 18:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. That's not what the word means, that's not a concept it's strongly associated with. Just because this is an egregiously misleading redirect doesn't make it an evil one. "Egregious stupidity" gets enough GBooks hits to show this is off target. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to soft redirect to Wiktionary seems a helpful and normal approach. I see no pressing reason to delete when we have a useful alternative available. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Bridgeplayer. I don't frequent here so much but it seems consistent with previous decisions - gratuitous seems comparable and is one I've been involved in in the past. Crispmuncher (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC).
 * Delete as a confusing redirect term. Zickel (talk) 20:55, 5 October 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.