Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 23

April 23
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 23, 2012

WDVE and WKVE



 * 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 18:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


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

Implausible redirect, as WDVE and WKVE are not related; while there is a page history, it was in the form of a cut-and-paste merger of the WDVE and WKVE articles (but only WKVE was redirected, and that has been reverted). Had been nominated for proposed deletion, though the redirection ended that process for this page.  WC  Quidditch  &#9742;   &#9998;  22:25, 23 April 2012 (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.

====The Idler Wheel Is Wiser Than The Driver of The Screw And Whipping Cords Will Serve You More Than Ropes Eill Ever Do ==== 


 * 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, G7. by Rossami Lenticel  ( talk ) 02:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * → The Idler Wheel... (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I misspelled it. sorry. there's a redirect for this album and i just misspelled "Will" with "Eill".  Reza  ( Let 's Talk ) 21:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When you immediately recognize your own mistake like this, you can just tag the page with db-self. No need for a full deletion nomination.  Rossami (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2012 (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.

Ski walking



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


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

This redirect was blanked and tagged for AFD on April 22. The concern was, in its entirety, "Nordic Walking is not Ski Walking." The redirect has been in place since 2006, and I can find no discussions about whether it is appropriate or not. So, I'm bringing it here for discussion. The nominator's recommendation was Delete; on the merits, I have no opinion. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A google search on the exact phrase "ski walking" turns up almost nothing except descriptions of the activity described at our current Nordic walking article. The google results do suggest that the more generic term should be pole walking ("Nordic" being a brand name of the company that popularized the equipment and the activity) so perhaps the article should be moved and the redirects retargetted but I see no credible argument to delete.  Rossami (talk) 18:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if another target is found then sure, the redirect can point to that article. The fact of the matter just is that "Nordic Walking is not ski walking". As is also proved by Rossami, with a simple Google search. Now on this current subject, as a well-informed individual (I am in direct contact with the sport's creator Marko Kantaneva) ski-walking is just another attempt at sabotage by one of many opportunists - let me explain. When originally having trouble with posting this article, I think I mentioned in a discussion that there has been a lot of dispute over the new sport, simply because people see a new market product. Due to that there have also been large amounts of misleading information and mistreatment towards the creator etc. As seen before, when Tom Rutlin, the creator of Exerstrider was supposedly the creator of Nordic Walking (check previous articles. "Note: Google Tom Rutlin, he now calls Exerstrider Noric Walking as well, which it isn't. If you read his main argument through, the Times reference then there is talk of Ecerstrider, but no Nordic Walking." ) or mentioned on the articles discussion page, "INWA is simply a front for Excel". Now in an attempt to get a clear message through to the world I went ahead and fixed the article - much help was given to me by competent Wiki editors (Thank you by the way!). So in conclusion Ski-walking is not Nordic Walking it is simply a term taken into use to split the sport and sell goods under a different name, rather like Adidas and Adibas, but at a more equal scale (seeing as Nordic Walking is only just becoming popular amongst masses). KMuuli (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment re: "Nordic Walking is not ski walking" - I'm sorry but neither you nor I showed anything of the sort. What my search showed is that they are the same thing.  My search suggested that "pole walking" may be the more generic name (and if so, perhaps the article should be moved and the existing redirects updated) but the activities described under all three names are identical.  Rossami (talk) 12:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, when reading through your initial post again I realized where I misread. I would like to argue and in my heart truly will, since this is simply the outcome of purposely misleading propaganda, but my accusation for the time being has just my word to back it up. I understand that if we are to be scientific and professional about this you will want to update the tag back to its earlier for. I will go ahead and try to look into this matter more deeply when I have the time and hopefully prevail with some solid evidence. It is good to see that these articles really are monitored though, I thank you for this again busy moderators. KMuuli (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2012 (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.

Envirowiki



 * 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 18:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * → List of works available under a Creative Commons license (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Redirect is not discussed in the list due to the fact that the redirect itself is non-notable, which is a criterion which is keeping the list in proper scope and length. Izno (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The redirect does not strike me as especially harmful or confusing. The only argument I can see for deleting it is to return the title to redlink so someone might create the page.  Looking at their Alexa rank, however, it does not appear that they meet Wikipedia's inclusion standards.  That leaves me at weak keep (maybe retargetted to something about environmentalism rather than about their copyright license) because the redirect may be preempting the creation of non-notable content.  Rossami (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to List of environmental websites, where it is mentioned (and linked; that should be changed to an external link probably). The topic of a redirect should appear in the target article; failing to follow this rule is confusing to readers.  Therefore, if it continues to be targeted as it is, it should be deleted.  If it is "preempting the creation of non-notable content" (which is not supported by the logs or history), we can just WP:SALT it.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @896, i.e. 20:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * List of environmental also specifies that only notable content should be listed, which under your "if targeted as is", it should also be deleted. It might be worthy to SALT it. --Izno (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2012 (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.

Filter, map, reduce



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


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

Ctrl+F "filter" doesn't find anything on the target page. This should probably target something, but NoSQL isn't it.  N Y  Kevin  @639, i.e. 14:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The history points to MapReduce which was recently updated to open with the very first line that "MapReduce is the name of several software frameworks. See NoSQL where filter, map, reduce pipelines are described generally."  That edit also marked the page with npov.  The NoSQL page is also being extensively rewritten at present. A google search on the exact phrase "filter, map, reduce" suggests that this is a fairly generic computing concept, often though not exclusively associated with Python.  Existence of a term on a target page is not necessary to support a redirect, though it is generally preferred.  In this case, I am reluctant to support deletion while the respective articles are being reworked.  My recommendation is to keep for now and reevaluate when the respective pages have stabilized a bit.  Rossami (talk) 18:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If it's a "generic programming concept," why are we targeting it at NoSQL? Surely it's used elsewhere.  -- N  Y  Kevin  @859, i.e. 19:36, 23 April 2012 (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.