Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 13

November 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 13, 2012

John Tavaglione



 * 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. Also it's a redirects to a section of the article that has much more of a focus on these people the the rest of the article Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * → United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, not notable. If he isn't important enough to have his own article, he shouldn't redirect to page on the election he lost
 * Considering that people interested in the election may search for the name of the losing candidate, the redirect could be useful. I don't see any policy reasons that say it should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most likely, someone searches for John Tavaglione after seeing the name in a news story about the 2012 congressional election. They are then redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012, which says nothing about John Tavaglione except being listed in two tables of vote percentages. If I am that user, I would be annoyed. I would have thought I was going to get an article about John Tavaglione and instead I got nothing. Now, if this article actually had a paragraph about John Tavaglione, I would support the redirect. But it doesn't. For people interested in John Tavaglione, this article is not helpful, so the redirect should be removed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it's still not a reason to deleted the redirect. The other scenario is that someone sees the name and doesn't know who he is. In that case, the redirect takes them to an article that tell you who he is. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it is a reason to delete. Look at what happens when someone searches for the losing candidate in the 9th Congressional District, Debbie Bacigalupi. They get a Search Results page that says, You may create the page "Debbie Bacigalupi", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered. Then the first hit is United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012 with an excerpt showing that she was a candidate. So without the redirect, the user immediately understands that Debbie Bacigulpi was a losing candidate for a House of Representatives seat from California in 2012 — and that there is no Wikipedia article about her. But John Tavaglione redirects to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012 and the user is forced to do an in-page search, only to discover that the article doesn't say anything about the candidate except his percentage in the primary and general election. The user is worse off because if the redirect weren't there, the user would know without doing an in-page search that the article has nothing on the subject. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:24, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap, and the redirect doesn't require an in-page search, because the subsection is easy to add. Your argument suggests that prose should be added on the candidate at the target of the redirect, which would be preferable to deleting the redirect. I hope an admin can see that this applies to all three of the day's redirects, so I don't have to bother copy-pasting this response. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Major-party nominees' names are likely search targets, and it's better to send searchers here than somewhere else.  Moreover, losing candidates for US House often aren't notable and thus often shouldn't get articles; unless you can show that Tavaglione is different and should have an article, it's good for this redirect to exist because it hinders the creation of an inappropriate article about him.  Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - if they're not notable enough for an article, this is the best we can do for our readers. Wily D 08:25, 16 November 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.

Gregg Imus



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * → United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, not notable. If he isn't important enough to have his own article, he shouldn't redirect to page on the election he lost
 * Considering that people interested in the election may search for the name of the losing candidate, the redirect could be useful. I don't see any policy reasons that say it should be deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most likely, someone searches for Gregg Imus after seeing the name in a news story about the 2012 congressional election. They are then redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012, which says nothing about Gregg Imus except being listed in two tables of vote percentages. If I am that user, I would be annoyed. I would have thought I was going to get an article about Gregg Imus and instead I got nothing. Now, if this article actually had a paragraph about Gregg Imus, I would support the redirect. But it doesn't. For people interested in Gregg Imus, this article is not helpful, so the redirect should be removed. —Anomalocaris (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being a major-party nominee for a national legislature automatically makes your name a plausible search target, and sending readers to the election article is better than saying "Sorry, we don't have anything on this person".  Give me a better redirect target and I'll heartily support retargeting, but until then, this should stay as is.  Nyttend (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - if he's not notable enough for an article, this seems like the best thing to do for readers looking for information on him. Wily D 08:24, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I almost closed this one with the other two, but I saw that it was tagged with R with possibilities which if correct would mean that Gregg Imus is notable. If he's notable you could make the argument that this should be deleted to encourage the creation of an article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A possibility is just that. Until someone makes that possibility real, the answer is keep. One reason he might be more notable than most candidates is his history of outrageous radical right-wing statements and for founding the California branch of the Minuteman Project - this makes him more notable than most congressional candidates but I won't say at this time that he's notable enough for his own article. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:14, 21 November 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.

Virginia Fuller



 * 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. Also it's a redirects to a section of the article that has much more of a focus on these people the the rest of the article Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * → United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, not notable. If she isn't important enough to have her own article, she shouldn't redirect to page on the election she lost —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Considering that people interested in the election may search for the name of the losing candidate, the redirect could be useful. I don't see any policy reasons that say it should be deleted. AfD previously closed as redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Most likely, someone searches for Virginia Fuller after seeing the name in a news story about the 2012 congressional election. They are then redirected to United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2012, which says nothing about Virginia Fuller except being listed in two tables of vote percentages. If I am that user, I would be annoyed. I would have thought I was going to get an article about Virginia Fuller and instead I got nothing. Now, if this article actually had a paragraph about Virginia Fuller, I would support the redirect. But it doesn't. For people interested in Virginia Fuller, this article is not helpful, so the redirect should be removed. Yes, AfD previously closed as redirect, which was appropriate during the election as a placeholder, but not now. Anomalocaris (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being a major-party nominee for a national legislature automatically makes your name a plausible search target, and sending readers to the election article is better than saying "Sorry, we don't have anything on this person".  Give me a better redirect target and I'll heartily support retargeting, but until then, this should stay as is.  Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - if she's not notable enough for her own article, this seems like the most sensible place to send readers looking for information. Wily D 08:23, 16 November 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.