Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 16

March 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 16, 2012

Birkenhead Library, building controversy



 * 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. Although the !votes were evenly split, those calling for deletion didn't provide any evidence to back-up their assertions. In contrast those wanting to keep this provided evidence of usefulness through both use and facilitating the understanding of a complex history of page moves and discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


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


 * Delete. Unnecessary redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: there was an article under this name for more then a year, and the name received 2 hits/day. For now we have no reason to believe that this name is not linked off-site, while the related material can be found in the target article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two hits per day is not a reason to keep it. See WP:COSTLYREDIR. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:00, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the complete lack of benefits in case of deletion two hits per day is the decisive victory. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How so? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty straight forward: when you add up small positive and zero, do you get negative? This is a similar case: we have some positive effect from keeping this redirect and no positive effects from its deletion. Under such circumstances deletion seems to be a strange choice. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am positing that there is a net benefit in deletion per WP:COSTLYREDIR. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Linking this essay is nice of you, but it mainly mentions the amount of work for editors. As in this case no work is required any more, I just don't see the rationale you refer to. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As I said in the essay the existence of a redirect will mean ongoing work for editors who will scrutinise it and remove any vandalism. For ever. Until it is deleted. Or until the servers die. Or the heat death of the Universe. . -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is already an R at Birkinhead library building controversy, ths R only adds a comma, which is against WP:TITLE and does not aid a search at all. Delete as superfluous. Anyone putting in the terms "birkinhead" "library" "building" and "controversy" will find it via the search without the need of this arbitrary and unnecessary comma, an unlikely search term and totally superfluous. Si Trew (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am slighty mistaken. The R is at Birkenhead Library building controversy (note caps L, not my typo lower case). So my point gets stronger, since if you are going to make these pointless redirects at least make one from . Inform creator then let it go. Note also the misspelling or alternate spelling of Birkinhead vs. Birkenhead. That foxed me too, although it didn't fox the search engine. Si Trew (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep to preserve history. As Czarkoff notes, content existed at this site for over a year.  The page was nominated for deletion here, merged to the current target, unmerged, moved, then merged again.  These redirects help future editors who will need to sort out this history.  Note:  Redirects do far more than merely support the search engine.  So far, no on has presented a reason to delete this redirect.  Rossami (talk) 00:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some way of preserving page history so that it is visible? I have some arcane wikimagic worked on page histories at WP:RM. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:36, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, there are techniques for preserving the attribution history without keeping the pagehistory where it was actually contributed. Those techniques, however, are difficult to execute, highly error-prone and very difficult for future editors to trace back through even in the simplest of circumstances.  In an example like this where the content has been merged, unmerged, re-merged and debated on the merits multiple times, those alternate techniques would present an insurmountable obstacle.  Those techniques, though, would be applicable to Birkenhead Library building controversy (the title the page was moved TO before being collapsed into a redirect).  None of those techniques would solve the navigational confusion that would be cause by creating redlinks of Birkenhead Library, building controversy in the AFD debate, the Requested Move debate, etc.  Rossami (talk) 04:30, 20 March 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.

Increasing fascism



 * 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 speedy delete per . — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Redundant redirects to deleted article (see Articles for deletion/Creeping fascism). This redirect is part of the same problem that led to the target article's deletion. Not a plausible search term. bobrayner (talk) 11:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nominations merged at 17:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy-delete all per CSD#G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page). No alternative target presents itself.  Rossami (talk) 17:54, 16 March 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.

Anand Mitragotri



 * 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 speedy delete as hoax. Peridon (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A redirect with a strange history (first to XSS, then Cross-site scripting, then Bill Gates, and then blanked by the creator). No useful Google hits. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * → Bill Gates (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * It was created by user:Andymitragotri. After reviewing that editor's contribution history, speedy-delete as overlooked vandalism.  Rossami (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The same user also created Abhishek Agarwal as a redirect to Badshah Munir Bukhari. I can find no connection between those two people and suspect that it also was a subtle act of vandalism.  Rossami (talk) 17:50, 16 March 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.

Special service



 * 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 convert special service to a dab page and retarget special services to it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect was blanked by an IP editor, with edit summary:
 * → Special forces (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Special forces (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Special forces (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * "Special Services" and "Special Forces" are not the same thing. Special Services are things like athletics and moral activities.

I don't really agree, but I'm courteously putting forward a procedural nomination. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Convert to disambiguation. I disagree with the anon that this concept is reserved for athletics or morale activities.  It is more commonly associated with special operations groups following the British military tradition.  The generic concept of special forces is a reasonable target but so are Special Services Group of the Pakistan Army, Special Service Squadron formerly of the US Navy, Special Service Brigade of the British Army and Special Service Medal of various services to name just a few.  Note:  The plural special services redirects to the same target and should share the same fate in this discussion.  Rossami (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate singular per Rossami, retarget plural to the singular. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Dab'ed the singular form, Retarget the plural to the new dab.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:30, 19 March 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.