Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 7

August 7
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 7, 2012

The Little Emperor



 * 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 Little Emperor Syndrome Salix (talk): 20:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


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

Vandalism? Jawadreventon (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not vandalism. The edit summary left by the creator was "nickname for him in China" and nba.com and other sources also state this, although our article doesn't. It should be possible to find Little Emperor Syndrome from this title, but which should be the target I'm not certain. I am certain though that whichever is the target should have a hatnote to the other. Thryduulf (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to "little emperor syndrome" (though you might be referring to Napolean...) -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate to Little Emperor Syndrome and The Little Emperors -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate per Lenticel. Mention of Napoleon complex is also relevant there. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Little Emperor Syndrome, which already has a hatnote pointing to The Little Emperors. I don't think a separate dab page would be of much benefit here. Jafeluv (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Little Emperor Syndrome, which on the web is the predominant usage. The novel doesn't seem to be referred to enough in the the singular form to justify more than a hat note, and the nickname doesn't seem to be that frequent either, would be used in Chinese and isn't mentioned at the English players page. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:56, 3 September 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.

Gillion



 * 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 Indefinite and fictitious numbers. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


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

This was a redirect to a section that no longer exists (List of numbers). That section was removed as a violation of WP:N on 17 May 2011 (see the WikiBlame search for the content deletion). From what I can tell, the 2005 AFD for Rowlett also touches on the non-notability of the Gillion system. Because the target content has been removed, this redirect violates the principle of least confusion. The closest viable target I can see is Carmi Gillion, but I am not convinced of the wisdom of directing a surname to our only relevant biography. I'm favouring deletion here. BigNate37(T) 19:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this redirect's history contains a short stub about the term. This was redirected without merge notice to the now-deleted Rowlett article. Even if it was stealth-merged then (an admin would have to check this, as I cannot see the deleted article), the history is not necessary for attribution purposes. BigNate37(T) 19:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Indefinite and fictitious numbers, as another meaning of the word "gillion" is an indefinitely large number. -- 70.50.151.36 (talk) 04:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Good find. Indefinite and fictitious numbers lists jillion, which is a homophone. BigNate37(T) 05:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have retargeted the redirect to Indefinite and fictitious numbers as an R from related term, which seems like a good fit. N.b. I left the RfD notice intact. BigNate37(T) 19:33, 13 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.

Bertman v. J.A. Kirsch Co.



 * 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 both. Ruslik_ Zero 19:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Warren Court (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Article is redirected to a list of cases (articles) by the Warren court, an implausible target as it has no information on the actual case. GregJackP  Boomer!   11:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Joseph Bertman should be included in the nomination. TimBentley (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added it above per your suggestion. I haven't yet formulated an opinion about either redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * SCOTUS cases, if added to a list, are normally kept as redlinks until an article is actually written. See 2011 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States, List of United States Supreme Court cases involving the First Amendment, List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 567, etc.  Since all SCOTUS cases are normally notable, it is likely that an article will be written on the case.  Most members of WP:SCOTUS and WP:Law will develop the case article in userspace, then move it to the title.  This of course eliminates the redlink, but if an implausible redirect exists, then the redirect has to be deleted in order to move the article.  The Warren court list gives no information about the actual case itself, other than how it was named.  Regards,   GregJackP   Boomer!   14:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not mentioned in the target article and would be better as a red link to encourage creation of an article regarding this case. 82.132.248.43 (talk) 08:58, 12 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.

List of stub categories



 * 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 19:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. This is a cross-namespace redirect from mainspace to the project namespace. It has just a handful of incoming links, which I'll be glad to replace if the redirect is deleted, and receives about 100 pageviews each month—generated, most likely, by the incoming links.

Page statistics aside, this is not a useful redirect. It is not intended for readers, so there is really no reason for it to be in mainspace. It is not a useful shortcut for editors either since there are at least eight much shorter project-namespace shorcuts to the target page, as well as about 40 other redirects of comparable or lesser length. Thus, with the exception of the replaceable incoming links, the redirect serves no purpose. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:04, 7 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.