Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 3

August 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 3, 2012

AFM-Records



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


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

There is no dash in the official name of this company. Google gives variants without dash too. Alex Spade (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, the website has a dash (www.afm-records.de/ ) so it's likely some people will try this search term. Siuenti (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * keep. Not only is this misspelling entirely plausible, the 43 hits lats month show it's also actually used so deletion would be actively harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Current wiki-search is enough effective to neutralized such harmful. Alex Spade (talk) 09:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The internal search engine is only one of many ways people use to find Wikipedia articles, almost all the others (including direct links from external sites) do not have the benefit of search suggestions, etc. Redirects from common misspellings are atively encouraged because they benefit such readers. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unless there is potential for ambiguity, one-letter-off misspellings are always plausible. While I wouldn't go around adding a redirect for every conceivable off-by-one misspelling, the ones that are created show that someone has found them to be useful. For this redirect it is doubly so, per Siuenti's remarks. BigNate37(T) 18:09, 6 August 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.

Crazy Loop (Mm-Ma-Ma)



 * 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. Beyond stats, no real problem is seen with this move left-over. Tikiwont (talk) 14:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


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

(1) Incorrect redirect construction. "Group (song)" instead "Song (group)". (2) In addition there is not another Mm-ma-ma in en-wiki, so specification is superfluous. Alex Spade (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – per nomination. Senator2029&#8239;•&#8239;talk 17:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * keep for several reasons:
 * Neither of the reasons given in the redirect are valid reasons to delete a redirect (see WP:R)
 * This was the title of the article until 2010 so it should be retained for attribution and to avoid breaking incoming external links.
 * The redirect is getting significant numbers of hits - 68 last month for example.
 * It's not in the way of anything nor otherwise harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 68 is ridiculous nothing. This is must be near same amount that different search bots visit en-wikipedia monthly. Alex Spade (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the background noise of bots, etc is around 3-4 hits/month. 68 is significantly above average for redirects like this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Where can I find your info about amount of noise? Alex Spade (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Experience from spending time at RfD looking at stats for thousands of redirects. I don't know of any quantitative measurements that exist. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a pity. Another sysop (enough experienced) in our private discussion about another tech.problem estimates this noise as 30-40 hits/month. And such difference (3 or 30) is very important (decisive) for that another tech.problem. Alex Spade (talk) 16:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking only about redirects (I have insufficient experience about other pages), there are many that are clearly good and useful redirects that get less than 10 hits/month - articles may be different of course. I'll hunt out some when I next have time (later tonight at the earliest). Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The nature of private communications is such that it's poor form to cite them in public discussions. There is no context, and nobody to question should the information be suspect. I have seen several redirects with fewer hits: your nomination on this same page had roughly seven hits per month prior to its RfD nomination. It's rather difficult to believe that automated traffic accounts for the majority of the page hits for this redirect, especially considering their irregular rate (the graph is hardly a flat line). BigNate37(T) 17:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No-no-no. I know that private communications is poor form and I don't want to use his opinion as argument. Therefore I've marked my previous remark with  . My remark at 13:58, 4 August 2012 was rather question for general self-development than argument for specific case. It's pity, that WP has not got such statistic in form of quantity analysis. For my another problem the possible estimation are insufficient unfortunally. Alex Spade (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not necessary to keep old page titles as redirects for attribution. However, that is not to say there is no harm in deleting them: external links and past contributors may expect it to be at the old location. BigNate37(T) 21:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Superfluous disambiguation is not a bad thing for a redirect (though it usually is for article titles proper). There is no demonstrable harm here, as the target is not surprising or confusing, nor is the title more appropriate for a different article. In short, it makes sense. We have all the more reason to keep it since it was the original title of the article. BigNate37(T) 21:45, 5 August 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.

Johanna(Shut Up)



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:32, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * → Joanna (Shut Up!) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unused. Space between "Johanna" and "(Shut Up)" is missing. Alex Spade (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, plausible typo. Siuenti (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many other typos. Current wiki-search is enough effective to neutralized one-symbol typos. Alex Spade (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * keep per Siuenti. Deletion would bring no benefits, it is irrelevant what other typos have redirects. See also my comments above re the internal search engine. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give the example of link from external site to "Johanna(Shut Up)" (which was base name only for two minutes)? Alex Spade (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Alex, that's not the point. The mere existence of a redirect does no harm, puts no load on Wiki servers. The burden for deleting a redirect is very high, usually requiring that the redirect is confusing or deceptive or vandalism, and that the redirect can't be targeted to a better article. In this case, this slight formatting error goes exactly where a user would expect, there's no confusion, deception, vandalism or harm, so there's no reason to delete, so we don't. Ego White Tray (talk) 07:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Unambiguous, plausible typo. The fact that the article was created there originally is evidence enough of its plausibility as a typo, even if it is not clear from inspection. BigNate37(T) 18:06, 6 August 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.