Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 28

March 28
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 28, 2012

Legal terrorism



 * 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 turn into a disambiguation page. There is no consensus to delete the redirect, and the general opinion here seems to be that the current target is not the clear primary meaning for the term. For arguments on what links to include on the disambiguation page, please use the talk page. Jafeluv (talk) 00:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * → Dowry law in India (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

AfDs for this article:  Delete. This redirect has been in place since September. I was going to speedy delete this as vandalism, but it seems to have a convoluted history. Nevertheless, this is a clear WP:NPOV violation, as it is the equivalent of redirecting "Infanticide" to Abortion. Yes, there are people who call it that, but it doesn't mean they get to create a redirect on Wikipedia to promote their cause. It's already attracted several complaints on the talk page. Kaldari (talk) 22:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep or disambiguate. Per WP:RNEUTRAL redirects don't have to be neutral, and the redirect was the result of the consensus to merge and redirect in the 2nd (most recent) AfD. As it was a merge, deleting it isn't in compliance with our licence's requirements to properly attribute work. Even excluding Wikipedia, it does seem that this is either the primary usage or close to it, with the only close contender being the use of bullying, underhand or oppressive legal tactics by large organisations to get their way. Personally, I'd have expected this to point at state-sponsored terrorism but this use isn't represented in the first three google hits at least. Thryduulf (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree in this case. I looked through the first 100 matches in Google Books for "legal terrorism" and not a single one referred to Indian dowry law. Most of them referred to state-sponsored terrorism, vexatious litigation, or the Israeli occupation of Palestine. You will find a few matches in a regular Google search, but this is mostly due to the lobbying campaign of a single organization, the Save Indian Family Foundation. Not only is this redirect offensive and abusive, but it is also guilty of recentism, as the term has a much longer history than the Indian court decision from last year and the associated campaign against part of the dowry law. Also, there is no attribution issue as none of the original text in Legal terrorism still exists in Dowry law in India (which isn't surprising as it was all highly POV with no citations). Kaldari (talk) 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Turn into disambiguation page. While a significant number of reliable sources use the term in reference to the Indian dowry law, most users searching with the search term "legal terrorism" will be surprised being redirected to Dowry law in India, and in fact most RS using this term use it as a synonym for State terrorism or State-sponsored terrorism. --Lambiam 10:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it being a disambiguation page, but I don't think it should list Dowry law in India, otherwise we are letting an advocacy group game the system by associating a disparaging term with a law they dislike. If I started a campaign to call jaywalking laws "legal terrorism" and a few sources picked up on my campaign, would that dictate that Wikipedia must also associate them? Also, I'm not see a "significant number of reliable sources" using the term in association with Indian dowry law. It looks like mostly blogs and pages associated with the Save Indian Family Foundation, which is not a reliable source in this case, as it is a highly biased lobbying group. Regardless, the phrase is quite general and has apparently been applied to nearly everything under the sun. I don't think it would make any sense to start listing them all in a disambiguation page. I'd love to see the fireworks go off when we list Occupation of Gaza as "legal terrorism" (as it has been characterized in some books). Kaldari (talk) 13:33, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The only question that matters when deciding whether an entry is listed on a disambiguation page is "Is the subject of the article likely to be looked for under this title?",to do otherwise would be to make a value judgement - i.e. POV. In this case, someone seeing the term "legal terrorism" could be looking for information on the dowry law in India, so it would be included. The phrasing of the link would make it clear that it is a non-neutral term that we are reporting not making. Thryduulf (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No one looking for information on dowry law in India is going to start by searching for 'legal terrorism'. Nor would anyone who is searching for information on the Israeli occupation of Palestine. It would be like listing Hilter under Nazi asshole. The phrase is simple invective, not a term of art. Kaldari (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate per Thryduulf. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no other articles that use "Legal terrorism" in their titles. So, there is nothing to disambiguate. Ruslik_ Zero 08:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * However there are several articles that people could be looking for when searching for this title. Deletion will not help them find what they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 10 April 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.

Strobe Light (album)



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 08:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


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

Really lets face it no one is ever going to to find this redirect useful. I know an AFD ended in merge and redirect, but I do not feel that was the proper way to handle this minor hoax that got attention for one or two days. Ridernyc (talk) 20:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The stats show that contrary to your assertion, it is well used and it is therefore useful. Also, as content when merged we keep the resulting redirect to maintain the attribution history that our license requires. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 29 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.

Patricia Barrett



 * 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 11:37, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


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

Delete. Redirect associates a relatively common name with a (mostly} softcore film actress who used it once as a pseudonym. All wikipedia links to the redirect deal with a Penthouse model active a few years after the actress died, presumably an entirely different person. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless someone can demonstrate that the articles using the redirect are actually trying to get to Janet Banzet. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 28 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.

implausible Jayne Mansfield-related redirects



 * 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. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete all three. Utterly useless and superfluous. These three redirects are wholly implausible, nonstandard search terms; each is used exactly once on WP, in a "See also" subsection link in the main Jayne Mansfield article, and should be replaced there with direct links to their targets. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * → Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Jayne Mansfield in popular culture (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]


 * Keep all three. No, this is not a first for Wikipedia. Redirecting to sections within an article is common practice here. They may be "useless", "superfluous", "implausible" and more to you. But, to Wikipedia they are targeted redirects, perfectly within policies, guidelines, traditions and rationality. None of the relevant policies call for this deletion proposal, rather complimentary policies clearly asks that we keep them. An argument based on "I don't like it" or "just doesn't belong" is no reason for deletion. Remember - "A redirect is a page which has no content itself, but sends the reader to another article, section of an article, or page" (WP:REDIR). Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nomination; totally implausible as search terms, they serve no purpose other than to add another dimension to the "in popular culture..." clutter. bobrayner (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A redirect is not a search term. Please check WP:REDIR. There it says clearly that a purpose of a redirect includes "sub-topics or other topics which are described or listed within a wider article. (Such redirects are often targeted to a particular section of the article)". And, that strange clutter argument is so implausible that you should clarify yourself first. What do you really mean? Remember, "shortcuts or redirects to subsections of articles or Wikipedia's advice pages should never be bypassed, as the section headings on the page may change over time. Updating one redirect is far more efficient than updating dozens of piped links" (WP:NOTBROKEN). Aditya (talk • contribs) 19:55, 4 April 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.

Michael Cera And Ellen Page



 * 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 as potentially confusing. Ruslik_ Zero 08:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


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

Creating redirects out of combinations of cast members is unreasonable, sets a bad precedent, and is just not a particularly good redirect. If you're trying to think of some movie with certain actors you can google it, not have wikipedia predict it for you. Yaksar (let's chat) 06:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Creating a redirect from a non- or semi-notable actor to their one notable work is an accepted practice. That does not apply here, however.  Creating a redirect based on the combination of cast creates ambiguity if they ever work together on other projects.  I find no history to redeem the redirect.  Delete because the potential for confusion outweighs the possibility of inbound links.  Rossami (talk) 15:59, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Juno (soundtrack). Cera and Page aren't a single unit in their capacity as actors; however, for at least one song they formed a sort of band, whose only work was featured in the Juno soundtrack. Lots of people will have "Michael Cera and Ellen Page" as an ID3 tag, and they get a decent number of plays at Last.fm. (I understand this still might be confusing, though, and so would prefer deletion to maintenance of the status quo.) – hysteria18 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know, I don't completely disagree with your logic, but the points raised by Rossami would still kind of apply, and it does still seem to go against any precedent. And if someone actually was to use this search term (most likely if it was autofilled in the search box for them) they'd more likely be expecting the film article than the soundtrack, I'd assume. I mean overall, the likelihood of someone searching "Michael Cera and Ellen Page" hoping to find the soundtrack page seems very slim and more confusing than helpful.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that someone searching for "Michael Cara and Ellen Page" would be looking specifically for the soundtrack page (or for the film page for that matter). They'd be looking for an article that gives them information about the two people working as a duo and/or their work as a duo. We don't have an article dedicated to this subject, so given that this is a [i]very[/i] well used redirect (over 100-200 hits a month) we should do what we do for other useful search terms that have no single article - i.e. redirect the title to the article that gives the most useful information about the topic. In this case there are three articles I can find that are possible destinations - Juno (film), Juno (soundtrack) and Anyone Else but You. The article about the song mentions the duo in passing as part of a short prose section that deals primarily with the original recording and do doesn't educate readers significantly beyond the fact that they released a cover version (which it's not unlikely people arriving via this redirect will already know). The article about the film contains a lot more prose, but Cera and Page are never mentioned together and the only mention of the song they did together comes in a single sentence at the very end of the filming section, so anyone landing at this page - either at the lead paragraph or direct to a section - would be searching fruitlessly for the information they're looking for. In contrast, the article about the soundtrack explicitly talks about the song they performed as a duo. Although it's not a huge amount of information it's more than the other two possible articles put together. That article also directly links to the articles about the song, the film and both Cera and page so if someone was looking for more about any of these topics they're no more than one click away. Accordingly my recommendation is to retarget to Juno (soundtrack). Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. A well-used redirect, useful, and specific. They were the two main actors in Juno and other not otherwise associated. If people want to discuss retargetting to the soundtrack, that'd be fine by me too. Fences  &amp;  Windows  18:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete if we keep this, then we'll have to make disambiguation pages for Humphrey Bogart and Katherine Hepburn, Quentin Tarantino and Uma Thurman, Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith, Desmond Llewllyn and Lois Maxwell... 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHER things existing or being possible doesn't affect this redirect being useful and used. The Bogart and Hepburn one would be a fine redirect to The African Queen (film), as it happens. Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:05, 9 April 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.

Moonie wedding



 * 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. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * → Blessing Ceremony of the Unification Church (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. "Moonie" is the pejorative form relevant to Sun Myung Moon, according to Journalism ethics and standards. See WP:BLP. Borovv (talk) 12:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:BLP does not apply.  It is a pejorative but there is no living person being specifically disparaged by the redirect.  The relevant policy would be WP:NPOV but that also does not apply to redirects.  In fact, pointing from a POV title to the proper NPOV article is an explicitly encouraged use of redirects.  It aids readers while also educating them on the proper and non-pejorative term.  Rossami (talk) 15:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I am a Unification Church member (since 1974) and I started the page so that people who have never heard of the Blessing Ceremony can find the article when they hear about "Moonie mass weddings" in the news media and want to learn more. I like Borovv's enthusiasm but he is going a little overboard here.  No one will see the page to be offended unless they are already using the offensive word. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Despite being a pejorative term, the phrase as been in wide use for an extended period of time and was once acceptable in mainstream news publications. It is therefore a plausible search term for which there is no functional alternative. It's not conceptually different from "papist" as a constructed term of derision in such widespread use that it cannot be ignored. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:13, 28 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.