Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 30

June 30
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 30, 2012

Gender and sport



 * 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 Women's sports. Ruslik_ Zero 19:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


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

Misleading, as one would expect a page similar to Race and sport, however the target is only about women. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps retarget to Sociology of sport, which seems like it's about the right sort of thing, although the article is a stub with a truly massive reading list appended. It does have a see-also link to the current target though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection to BigNate's suggested retargeting. 82.132.211.244 (talk) 09:19, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as is for now. The dominant gender-based issues in sports are about access (the problems that Title IX, for example, was supposed to fix).  There is no second issue of physiological difference - no one expects men and women to be the same.  The current target focuses on exactly that social progression. I could see an argument to expand the current "Women's sports" content to focus on the more general issue of gender.  If done, it might make sense to move the expanded content to this title.  Until then, however, there's no better target that I can find.  Sociology of sport is far too broad a topic even if that page were expanded past a stub.  Rossami (talk) 01:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Women's sports and tag R with possibilities, which is a sufficiently similar topic to what one would expect following a link to gender and sport. Recommend additionally adding an anchor in the section title to insulate against section name changes in the future (in my opinion The Battle for Equality is non-neutral, and may end up changing). BigNate37(T) 08:19, 11 July 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.

Koreanophile



 * 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 18:57, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


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

An article titled Koreanophile should describe appreciation of Korean culture itself, whether it is about modern or traditional. However, it currently redirects to an article about that of South Korean popular culture. I'm not saying it should be deleted, but I think someone should create an article about appreciation of Korean culture in general. (Well, I'm not an expert at all.) JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 16:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the current target is less than ideal. Unfortunately, I'm not sure what is better.  Looking at similar titles, I find anglophile, an awful article that dresses up a dictionary definition in paragraph form and includes far too many pop-culture "examples".  Francophile, on the other hand, starts with a short definition but then goes on to discuss the different cultural connections and significance of general francophilia through history.  Unfortunately, many of the listed examples describe political alliances more than true francophilia. This redirect is an artifact of a disputed pagemove (the "Korean wave" content was moved here then promptly moved back).  All in all, I think a simple retarget to Korea is most likely to get a reader to the page they really want.  Rossami (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Creation of new, more topic-appropriate content is always welcome, however that is asking more than is fair of the closing admin. Unless and until content is added, is it more helpful in this case to link to the closest thing, or is that too misleading? In this case I believe it is misleading; the term Koreanophile does not appear at the target article, and while keeping this redirect and tagging it as R with possibilities isn't a bad solution, I believe it's a better solution to delete it at this time. Note that editors can create a new article about 'Korea-philia' whether there is a redirect at the location of the preferred title or not. BigNate37(T) 08:14, 11 July 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.

Beezo



 * 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 16:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


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

Delete. The section in question ("Recurring enemies") does not exist on the page; it appears that at some point in the past, minor recurring enemies such as Beezos were removed from the article. "Beezo" is no longer mentioned on the page. The only incoming link is intended for an artist featured on a rap album, which should be a redlink AFAICT. Powers T 14:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, we could retarget it to Recurring enemies in the Mario franchise if we add the Beezo (a Shy Guy variant) to that section. But we would still need to address the erroneous incoming link somehow.  Powers T 14:09, 30 June 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 most wanted suspected jihadists



 * 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. No explanation given of why this particular redirect should point to that particular target. Ruslik_ Zero 16:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * → Saudi list of most wanted suspected terrorists (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I am not sure why a List of most wanted suspected jihadists (if ever it exists) should point to Saudi list of most wanted suspected terrorists, there is a similar list by almost every country fighting against Jehadists. The redirect was wrongly created, support deletion.  D Big X ray  13:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * eg FBI Most Wanted Terrorists, FBI's most wanted jihadists, Yemeni list of most wanted suspected terrorists etc (A similar list also exists for India ) -- D Big X ray  18:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- I question nominator`s assertion that “almost every country has one”. Without regard to whether other countries maintain a “list of most wanted suspected jihadists” I assert no other country has published a list of most wanted suspected jihadists.
 * Nominator has been very insistent that I would be in a conflict of interest unless I explicitly disclaimed that I started the target of any of the XfD initiated on material I started. Geo Swan (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @Creator Please WP:AGF and see WP:DISCUSSAFD, WP:Comment on content, not on the contributor attacking discussing the nominator will do no good to your case.-- D Big X ray  14:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * @DBigXray, there was no attack on the nominator.
 * @Geo Swan, great idea to disclose that you are the creator, but no need to make a fuss about it.
 * @BothOfYou, please drop the drama. Thanks. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The comment above is uncalled for as the so called "drama" was already calm for the last 3 days. That said, now can we please discuss the Redirect in question ?-- D Big X ray  06:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete It is a Saudi list, not an international list that applies to all as a general rule. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛  Talk Email 11:14, 4 July 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.