Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 23

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

Waffleist



 * 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 redlink might encourage someone to write the article.--Salix (talk): 08:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Life stance does not say anything about Waffleist Chealer (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Added Waffleism to nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * → Life stance (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Life_stance (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Comment: Whatever the decision is, the redirect Waffleism should share the same fate.  Rossami (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. "Waffelism" was in the article back in 2008 as a non-denominational (and theoretically more neutral) example which the reader could then compare to the other '-isms'.  It appears to have been taken out after a good-faith debate about the flow of the article.  In the meantime, however, a number of websites have popped up using Waffelism as a parody religion similar to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.  I could see either retargetting to parody religion or deleting in the hope that, if notable and sourcable, the redlink might encourage someone to write the article.  Rossami (talk) 00:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's true that I created the Waffleism entry and redirect as a theoretically more neutral example, but if I had known better, I would probably have redirected it to parody religion directly. As for now, I think any additional entries on this subject has more chance of survival in a subsection of that article than as an individual article, so I'm leaning towards a redirect to parody religion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: there is no sense in neither keeoing it nor redirecting it to parody religion, as these targets say nothing about the essence of Waffleism. I think that the red link entry for Waffleism should be actually created at parody religion, so that people knowledgeable about the normal sources on topic could consider creating an article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:40, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I also nominated Wafflem for speedy deletion per . — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:44, 25 February 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.

TGen Drug Development (TD2)



 * 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, tag wth --Salix (talk): 08:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Implausible redirect - against well established policy. (Why is on a mission to retain these pointless redirects?) &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in accordance with policy and long-established precedent. The content existed at this title for months before being moved.  The new title is better but the old title is neither confusing nor controversial.  The pagemove process automatically creates these redirects both to capture any  inbound links (whether internal or external) AND to help the editors/readers who worked on the page find the new location.  When we summarily delete the redirects after pagemoves, new editors frequently think that the server somehow "ate" their content and repost it, forking the article and creating more work for everyone.  Redirects are cheap - far cheaper than the rework that comes from deleting them without good cause.  Rossami (talk) 18:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Comes up on a search which creates reader confusion, and it adds to the maintenance burden for editors. Look at it at a reader viewpoint. Editor hand-holding is secondary to the requirements for readers. PLEASE ignore all rules if it gives the reader a satisfying WP experience. And note that there are no incoming links that need to go to the target article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So tag it with unprintworthy to suppress its inclusion in search results. Regarding readers over editors, I strongly agree. Remember that an unknown number of readers also found and maybe linked to the older title while content was there. Regarding links, you have recently updated the inbound internal links but links to the old title remain in page histories of several other pages and could be restored if, for example, a page has to be reverted back to clean up overlooked vandalism.  Remember also that "what links here" only shows you links from other Wikipedia pages.  There are no tools to find links from outside the project.  Rossami (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, tagging it with unprintworthy solves the search problem but here we are still wasting valuable editing time on something that is infinitesimally small compared to the project on the whole. The chance of the redir linked from outside of WP is very small given that the article was created in late 2011. PLEASE, look at the big picture. Don't waste your time keeping these redirs. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I believe you have it exactly backwards. The big picture is that 1) the project exists to serve readers, many of whom navigate the wiki differently than you and I, 2) we can't know whether or how many external links exist (though we make assumptions based on age) but link rot is a serious problem and should be minimized whenever possible, 3) new editors tend to over-react when their good-faith contributions disappear and 4) Redirects are cheap.  The value of the redirect may be small but the cost of keeping it around is essentially zero.  Let me reverse the question.  Why are you wasting valuable editing time trying to delete these unharmful redirects?  Move the page and be done with it.  Leave the redirect alone.  Rossami (talk) 23:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So why is deletion inconsistently applied? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: harmless, leftover after move, no reason to delete. (Why is there so many bogus nominations recently?) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:21, 25 February 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.

Rand, Paul



 * 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. Lenticel  ( talk ) 02:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


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

We seem to tend to only do redirects like this for especially prominent people (e.g. Obama, Barack but no Obama, Michelle), perhaps because when you search for the reversed form the top result is invariably the intended target. This one is especially confusing given the existence of Rand Paul, who's probably better known and gets more pageviews – a dab page might be appropriate but I'd favor deletion. – hysteria18 (talk) 17:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Rand Paul has a hat-note, so does Paul Rand. I'm not sure that someone searching with a comma would be likely to be looking for anyone other than Paul Rand. Rich Farmbrough, 18:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC).


 * I am inclined to agree with Rich that a reading using this format is most likely to be looking for the current target. I can see the argument for a disambiguation page but better in my mind to keep as is.  The hatnotes are sufficient for the few who get misdirected.  Rossami (talk) 19:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: it is fairly common to put comma between last and first names when spelled in this order, and not otherwise. I see no need in DAB, neither good rationale for deletion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:19, 25 February 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.

Talinn



 * 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 (non-admin close). Pontificalibus (talk) 11:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Deletion. Implausible typo and that kind of spelling is not common in any language (at least in any major language for sure.) Was nominated for speedy as R3 but was declined due incoming links. All these incoming links are repaired now (except talk pages). Beagel (talk) 05:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep clearly nomination doesn't make sense. If it's implausible, there wouldn't have been any incoming links. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 09:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Completely plausible typo. Pleased to see the current set of incoming links have been fixed but more may arrive at any time. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. And so far when there is a totally normal blue link instead of red one, nobody will even take a care to notice and fix the typo—plausible or not. Beagel (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an entirely plausible typo and the title is not in the way of any other obvious content.  Redirects are cheap.  Why do you want to make life harder for our readers (who won't know how to follow a redlink) just to browbeat the few editors who make a minor and plausible spelling mistake?  Rossami (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: very plausible misspelling. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:17, 25 February 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.

National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (NCEF)



 * 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 tag, harmless result of page move with long history.--Salix (talk): 08:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * → National Clearinghouse for Educational Facilities (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unneeded redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per standard policy. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What policy? – hysteria18 (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The redirect is an artifact of a recent pagemove.  The new title is better but the old title is neither confusing nor harmful to readers.  The content sat without controversy or confusion at the old title for 3 1/2 years before being moved.  While there are currently no internal inbound links to the redirect, we know that internal links remain in the project history of various pages and we can not exclude the possibility of external links still referencing that title. Our standard policy and long-standing precedent, by the way, is that redirects such as this are routinely kept.  That's why the pagemove process defaults to their creation.  Rossami (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give data that supports keeping these redirs? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Will come up on a search which creates reader confusion, and it adds to the maintenance burden for editors. Look at it at a reader viewpoint. Editor hand-holding is secondary to the requirements for readers. PLEASE ignore all rules if it gives the reader a satisfying WP experience. Note that there are no incoming links that need to go to the target article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: the article was there for 4 years, and we just don't know yet, whether it was bookmarked/linked externally. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:15, 25 February 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.