Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 4

December 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 4, 2012

Bonit (bishop of Valence)



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete. The target of the redirect is a disambiguation page that lists articles about three persons, none of whom was a Bishop of Valence. This redirect is not helpful to a reader who is looking for the Bishop of Valence; basically, it's saying, "We don't have what you want but maybe you'd like to read about one of these other people with a similar name instead." Better to leave a red link so that the need for an article will be evident. R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * → Bonitus (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Keep Red link was added to the diocese of Valence article. The article can be built on. JASpencer (talk) 22:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You seem to be under the impression that readers should be shielded from seeing red links. Red link suggests otherwise.  --R'n'B (call me Russ) 01:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per Russ. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 23:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as this redirects inaccurately. Better to have the redlink than a false redirect. — sparklism  hey! 08:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:REDLINK and nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 9 December 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.

Rich Australians



 * 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) 22:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

What's the point here? Man way  06:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Pointless. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 11:49, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Weihang7 (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. No rational reason exists for these pages, therefore they are pointless redirects. — sparklism  hey! 08:42, 6 December 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.

Pro-Islamic



 * 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. There's really no consensus on what should be done with this title, but consensus is clearly against keeping these redirects where they are, and there's likewise consensus against simply retargeting them to another actual article.  If you want an RFD to be closed as "disambiguate", you need to convert the redirect into a disambiguation page or to supply the contents for it, and since neither of those happened, this can't be closed as disambiguate.  However, there's really no consensus on the disambiguation question, so any actions within our policies are appropriate. Nyttend (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Delete Being Pro-Islamic and supporting the Islamist political ideology are two very different things. The current target doesn't make sense. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * → Islamism (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Islamism (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Redirect to Islam since they are indeed not the same thing; one who is Pro-Islamic is not necessarily an Islamist, and titles reflecting viewpoints on a topic typically redirect to the articles on said topics - i.e. Islam, in this case. And if the consensus for this RfD is anything other than "keep," we should probably extend it to, which currently redirects to Anti-Islamism.  (Anti-Islamism is a disambiguation page whose suggestions include Criticism of Islamism, but it seems like it would make a lot more sense to do the same thing for  as is done for : redirect to Islamophobia, which already has hatnotes on Criticism of Islam and Criticism of Islamism.) — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie  (Je vous invite à me parler ) 05:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't think of a single term this can reliably point to that would be a reliable and useful option. Plenty of people called "pro-Islamic" are not even Muslims. It can be a religious or a political comment, referring to Islam or Islamism. Redirecting to either could even be seen as POV. Just delete it and if necessary salt it. There's about 50 current uses of both redirects: I'd be happy to manually work through the redlinks - for the reasons I give above, I don't think a bot or AWB user could fix it easily. --Dweller (talk) 20:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete for not really making any sense. Islamism =/= being a Muslim =/= being pro-Islamic. CarniCat (meow) 04:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate Pro-Islamic. List the various targets this can mean, it's a very well used redirect and a redlink will not serve our readers well here. Retarget Pro-Islam to that dab page; the title is used occasionally but we really don't want an article at that title and a redirection is very significantly more helpful than salting in situations like this. Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There are precisely 30 links from articlespace to Pro-Islamic. It would be fairly easy to address each one and point it somewhere useful, rather than a disambiguation page. And I'd be happy to do the footwork myself. --Dweller (talk) 18:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We can fix the links on Wikipedia, but we can't fix all of the links on other websites, for that reason, best not to delete. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never seen an argument at XfD for keeping something based on links coming in from other websites. What they do is their concern. --Dweller (talk) 10:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then you've not spent any time at RfD. Deleting things that have incoming links causes link rot, and as good net citizens we should be leading by example and not contribute to the problem without good reason - see WP:RFD point 4. Thryduulf (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of these pages is "old", neither is CamelCase or an archive, neither page was ever an article, neither has many internal links, so why they should be abundantly useful externally is bewildering. --Dweller (talk) 11:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Remember that is not an all-inclusive list. It boils down to the fact that redirects are so cheap that the threshold for keeping them is very low. It doesn't matter why a page is getting used, just that it is. There is no way of knowing where the hits are coming from, based on experience of other redirects we generally assume that about 2-3 hits/month are the background noise of bots (search engine crawlers, etc) but beyond that it is visits from people, and so we shouldn't break links they are using without a good reason to. I've yet to see any good reason given on this thread, given that disambiguation pages exist precisely for situations where one term can refer to several things the lack of a single article that covers exactly this is not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no evidence anyone external is linking to these pages. Last month, the two pages respectively averaged about 6 and 0 hits per day respectively. Now that the template has been fixed and there's no internal links to the former, those figures should fall to 0 and 0. You're worried about a problem that doesn't exist. --Dweller (talk) 13:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We very rarely have any evidence that anyone external is linking to a page. Even if they are not, the question sill remains as to what benefit will deleting these bring? Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Reason for deleting redirects #5 "The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange". This isn't to the same extreme redirecting Apple to Orange, but redirecting Pro-Islam to Islamism is rather like redirecting Russophilia to Communism. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:14, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not advocating keeping the redirect as-is, but converting it into a disambiguation page that lists the several things that it could refer to. It's not at all like apples and oranges. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most if not all of those links are probably coming from Cultural appreciation. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I fixed the template Emmette mentioned, so that it's no longer pointing to a redirect, using the most appropriate page I could find. The two redirects now have 0 and 0 article pages linking to them, respectively. --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Presence or absence of internal links, regardless of namespace, is explicitly not a reason to keep or delete: "Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects that do have incoming links are sometimes deleted as well, so it's not a necessary condition either." (emphasis in original). Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Pages that get no incoming hits are not pages that have external links sending readers here that'll be bemused if/when we delete them. --Dweller (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comments seems confused between links and hits, they are not the same thing - redirects with links from articles almost always get hits, but there is no other relationship that is automatically inferable. It will be a couple of months before we can determine whether all the uses of these redirects came from the internal links. Listing at RfD always generates more hits for redirects, so we need to wait 3-4 weeks after the listing has ended before accurate statistics are available - it still doesn't answer the question about what benefits deletion has over disambiguation though. Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I didn't explain very clearly. I'll try again:


 * These two pages have been receiving negligble hits.
 * I have now fixed the few internal links to them.
 * With no remaining internal links, "negligible" hits will reduce even further.
 * This demonstrates that there are no active external links sending numbers of readers to those pages.
 * You were worried about the impact of link rot on external sites.
 * There's demonstrably no reason to worry about that.
 * There is no reason not to delete either of these redirects. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The hits for Pro-Islamic are very far from negligible - negligible for a redirect is the background noise of 2-3 hits/month.
 * The hits for Pro-Islam are fewer, but it still gets more hits than background noise most months.
 * Internal links are entirely unrelated to the presence or absence of external links, so removing the former implies nothing about traffic from external links.
 * As previously explained it is not possible to know about the presence or absence of external links - we can only make semi-educated guesses based on hit counts. To make accurate interpretation of hit counts requires an absolute minimum of 1 month (preferably at least 2-3) when the redirect is not listed at RfD or on a similarly high-profile page. This means the effect, if any, of your removing internal links can not be known for at least a month after all the discssions on this page are closed.
 * Redirects are so cheap that benefits from deletion must outweigh any harm from not deleting. In this case keeping a disambiguation page is a the very least harmless and more likely beneficial (the evidence is people are looking for this term). The benefits of deletion are zero (as evidenced by the complete lack of any presented here following multiple requests), and if people continue to look for this content then deletion would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ego White Tray (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)



Non-admin relist. Several editors have suggested changing this to a disambiguation page. Please comment or make a prototype so we can review what items would be included on such a page. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:41, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Tentative Delete If there were an article on Pro-Islamic sentiment we would just redirect this to there, but in the absence of one what is there to disambiguate. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as meaningless. I don't see how we could make it into a dab page without engaging in WP:OR. --BDD (talk) 00:18, 13 December 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.