Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 24

November 24
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 24, 2012

Shadowforce (DC Comics)



 * 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 17:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


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

This redirect should be deleted because there is nothing called "Shadowforce" mentioned on the Hitman (DC Comics) article nor on the List of DC Comics Hitman characters article. Neelix (talk) 22:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Shadowforce was a group sent to kill Hitman. I would suggest retargeting to List of DC Comics Hitman characters and adding them to the list. Ego White Tray (talk) 22:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * List of DC Comics Hitman characters is currently entirely unsourced; I would oppose adding yet more unsourced information. A "Shadowforce" entry should therefore only be added if it can be sourced. Neelix (talk) 20:52, 26 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.

IPhone 7



 * 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 per Codename Lisa. Ruslik_ Zero 17:19, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


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

We don't need this redirect because first we don't even know if Apple will follow this naming convention and second the iPhone 6 hasn't been released, and is probably far off. Vacation nine 22:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, firstly we don't want an article on it yet, so we should redirect it to the generic iphone article (unless we have one about future versions, there i much sourceable and probably notable information/speculation?) - there are over 2 million ghits about the phone already showing that it's a clearly well used search term. The redirect gets over 100 hits every month (it got nearly 200 in September), so it's clear that actually we do need something at this title - if the relevant model gets a different name then we will just retarget this to that title as given the existing numbering scheme it will remain a logical search term. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Notable speculation"?! No matter how much speculation there is or how well you regard the person speculating, an article should only be created if the product is actually announced. 82.132.139.148 (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While I am not recommending an article in this case, merely a redirect fm a very well used search term, articles/sections about anticipated products can be notable even prior to official announcement if appropriate coverage in reliable sources exists. In this case there are over 100 people each month looking for information about this anticipated product so we should redirect them to the information we have about them (currently just a list of iPhone models) rather than present them with unpredictable search results and an invitation to start an article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello, Thryduulf. Your comment was helpful; it convinced me that this redirect needs to be deleted. (You can see my comment below.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:MADEUP and WP:HOAX. 82.132.139.148 (talk) 19:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * All three guidelines you cite relate to articles, not redirects, and so are not relevant to this discussion. Even if we were discussing an article I would struggle to see the relevance of the latter two - there is abundant evidence that this is not something made up in one day, and nothing is claiming that the iPhone 7 is anything more than speculation about a future product. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, first crystal ball doesn't entirely apply to redirects. Second, crystal ball does allow for future things that are almost certain to happen. We don't need to speculate to say there will be two more major iPhones released, and even if it isn't called "7", there will still be a version that is known as the 7th iPhone. Once that model is made, whatever it's called, this can be retargeted. For now, iPhone is the proper target. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:32, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hi. Since the target article contains no information whatsoever on this subject or the future of iPhone in general, this redirect will only annoy readers. Even if people frequently search this term in Wikipedia, the absence of this redirect will give them the clear message that we don't have anything about this subject; a message that they eventually get anyway, after being sent on a wild goose chase. In case there is reason to think this term may be plausibly expanded into an article, again WP:R number 10 says deleting it is a good idea. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - plausible search term, redirecting to the best place to send readers. What else is there? --Wily D  07:28, 30 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.

Template:College football club infobox



 * 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 17:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)


 * → Template:Infobox football club (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unused. It doesn't follow the "Infobox foo" well-established format. Magioladitis (talk) 18:01, 24 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.

Template:MLS team



 * 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 closure). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * → Template:Infobox football club (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

It doesn't follow the "Infobox foo" well-established format. I am not exactly sure what MLS stands for and I see no transclusions in the mainspace. Magioladitis (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. I guess "MLS" stands for Major League Soccer, a US league. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep On further reflection, this does indeed seem to be harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see a problem needing deletion, since MLS is widely known in soccer circles in North America. -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 05:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - useful, no rationale for deletion. Wily D 10:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not hurting anything, and redirects don't have to follow naming conventions.  Nyttend (talk) 02:52, 27 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.

Articles for deletion



 * 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 a CNR redirect, which has been deleted multiple times in the past. Ruslik_ Zero 13:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


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

deletion per cross-namespace redirect. Weihang7 (talk) 06:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete XNR -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Update Speedy delete as recreation of deleted material, per findings -- 70.24.250.26 (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * This was created 3 years ago, and 3 years after the previous discussion - speedy deletion really isn't either necessary or desirable (WP:CCC) even if this were eligible. However, speedy deletion should almost never be used when there is an ongoing discussion (unless that discussion's consensus is recommending speedy deletion), and where that discussion has attracted good-faith recommendations for courses of action other than deletion then the page is inelligable for speedy deletion (because speedy deletion is only for cases that would always be deleted, where there are differing views this is not the case). Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That should be handled as an RFC at VP. It should be deleted, and then an RFC can be started at VP to establish if such things are desirable. -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus at all discussions about CNRs I've been involved in is that some CNRs are desirable and some are not, there is nothing to suggest a new discussion would come to a different conclusion. The correct course of action has been followed here - the page was boldy recreated as the discussion was very old, it was then nominated for deletion according to process. Speedy deletion based on a 3 year old discussion, let alone a 6 year old one, would be a violation of WP:Consensus can change. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whenever a reader types artic... into the search box (for example if they are looking for Artichoke or Articles of Confederation), they are currently presented with this in the list of options. This should not be presented to readers of the encyclopaedia. 82.132.139.201 (talk) 09:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Firstly just being a cross-namepace redirect is not a sufficient reason on its own for deletion, and even when combined with other reasons is always a weak motivation - they are not intrinsically harmful and many are useful. The redirect needs to be evaluated in terms of how useful it is vs the potential for confusion. In this case the balance is very strongly in favour of keeping the redirect because we need to make the AfD page easily accessible for new contributors - our deletion processes are regularly criticised for being opaque as it is without making them harder to find. In this regard it's worth noting the edit summary that accompanied the creation "creating this since this is where google lands you lookign [sic] for the real AFD page" There is no article this title is in the way of, so it is not harmful in that way. If there were an article this could redirect to then there would be no objection to a self-referential hatnote pointing to AfD. It is not currently technically possible to add a hatnote to a deleted or non-existent page, so our options are a likely confusing deleted page message with no guarantee that search results will be offered (it all depends on how you arrive at the page) or that search results will contain a prominent link to AfD, or a helpful redirect. The issue of the autocomplete list is irrelevant as tagging it with (which I'll do momentarily, as it is unprintworthy) will remove it from the autocomplete list (although I don't know whether this will take effect while it is effectively a soft-redirect due to the RfD notice). Another point worth noting is that this redirect is used as the example of a useful CNR in the essay about them - see Cross-namespace redirects, which should say something about it's worth - as should the fact that it is used at least 500-600 times each month. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Further to my point about I've started a discussion about effectively making the  function in the same way. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. It is a reasonable solution. Weihang7 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Your claim that tagging it with unprintworthy will remove it from the autocomplete list is incorrect. unprintworthy does not have that effect on CNRs (due to technical reasons I think?). Try starting to type User page or Wikidoption into the search box. They are both tagged as unprintworthy but still appear in the dropdown list. So this is still an issue. 82.132.139.20 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It should do that. The fact that it doesn't is a bug with something that should be fixed (thank you for bringing it to my attention, I'll report it in an appropriate place so it can be fixed). Bugs are not appropriate reasons to harm the project by deleting useful redirects though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See Village pump (technical). Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Could someone clarify me on the page Articles for deletion/Votes for deletion (2nd nomination), should it be already deleted? Weihang7 (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That discussion is from 2006, this redirect was created in 2009. Per WP:Consensus can change, a decision that old is no reason to close this discussion early. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean that since the decision is to delete, had the admin not performed the action at that time? Weihang7 (talk) 19:08, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It was deleted. It was then independently recreated three years later, and after that length of time a G4 speedy deletion would not be the best course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as XNR. If we keep encouraging these redirects we 'll end up not able to distinguish what is in-wiki and what is a real article. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than by use of categories and templates such as and Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages designed to explicitly do just that. Also, there is a big difference between keeping some useful CNRs and encouraging them generally. Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. I am not against all XNRs. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So why are you against this redirect? So far you have only spoken about the general case of CNRs as a whole. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because we have shortcuts that are better than this and I would prefer something like pseudo-space and not plain text. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF. The purpose of redirects like this from article space is to enable new users who don't know about/understand namespaces reach pages that it is very important we make it easy for them access. Shortcuts are even less accessible to these users than the actual page title. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It seems rather odd that you think it will help "new users who don't know about/understand namespaces" by having cross namespace redirects like this! They just confuse their understanding of namespaces even further (see my other comment below). 82.132.248.219 (talk) 00:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete We don't want this to appear on the search page. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? It will not appear in the search dropdown, and the only time it is likely to appear on the search results page is when people are searching for it, which is when we want them to be able to find it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It will still appear in the search dropdown as explained above. 82.132.139.20 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * See comment above for why this is not relevant. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is still relevant unless that issue is fixed (and it doesn't look like that will happen any time soon...). 82.132.139.247 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, if we have redirects to project namespace, this is one of the more useful ones, as are policies, guidelines, noticeboards and processes. If redirects make it more difficult to distinguish content from non-content, maybe something such as Template:Wiktionary redirect should be created; if anything cross-wiki redirects are more problematic, leading to a similar-looking but different site from which it is necessary to navigate back before continuing use of Wikipedia. Peter&#160;James (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * such as soft redirect ? -- 70.24.250.110 (talk) 03:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect combined with a redirect template would be better; that was the result of Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 9, where a redirect had a similar level of use. Peter&#160;James (talk) 10:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why would you type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/articles_for_deletion or search for "articles for deletion" if you didn't want to end up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_Deletion?  Deleting for the sake of the few people who arrive here accidentally will negatively impact more than five hundred people per month (judging by the last three months' results), as well as un-resolving the issue mentioned in the edit summary for when this redirect was created.  Nyttend (talk) 02:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The issue mentioned in the edit summary is not an issue at all. Google takes you to the correct target (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion). How do you know it is just a few people? No one has so far come forward to say that they actually regularly use this. That could well be 500 readers arriving here accidentally. If that is the case this is a very harmful redirect. 82.132.139.247 (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Deleted several times in past. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. Besides, one of the criteria for being included in article-space is Notability, this page lacks sufficient in-depth coverage outside Wikipedia. Mr T  (Talk?)  [ (New thread?) ] 09:33, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change, and the fact that a category and template now exist for these, and redirects in the category have existed for over two years is evidence of that. Cross-namespace redirects was created after that discussion had been open for a few days. There's also an article that didn't exist then, Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia that mentions AFD, and the redirect could be retargeted to that, only it's more likely that people who use this redirect want the project page. Peter&#160;James (talk) 10:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is only a requirements for articles, the requirement for a redirect is usefulness. The people commenting here not the people who benefit from this sort of redirect - it exists to help very new editors who are likely to be trying to find a discussion about their article. Per WP:RFD point 5, "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." Redirects such as this are very useful for making Wikipedia's processes as transparent as possible. Thryduulf (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * However no one has said that they find this redirect useful (and they didn't in any of the previous discussions regarding this redirect). I would argue that cross namespace redirects like this are actually more confusing to new editors rather than helpful. We are straight away confusing them by having this in the article space. Why do new editors need this redirect? afd and afd-notice (the main ways new editors would find out about AfD) both link to AfD directly. New editors are not going to learn that they need to add WP: to project pages if there are some like this where they don't need to! The presence of this redirect just confuses matters. 82.132.248.219 (talk) 23:51, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I find this useful, personally. Especially when I forget to add the Wikipedia bit in front, and I can imagine it is useful and time-saving for others. I fail to see why anyone would find this problematic. I know this is a WP:ILIKEIT argument, but it's a convenience for everyone, including new users - and I don't see anyone typing in "Articles for Deletion" unless they wanted to get to that page. Lukeno94 (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - mostly useless. Potentially harmful. I presume, new users are not usually looking for the "articles for deletion" page. I would bet from most the first contact with it is by following a direct link to some article's discussion. I also bet most of them will pick up the concept of namespaces pretty soon, and learn! Alternatively we may spoon feed new users with a 'wrong' short-cut, removing them from the intricacies of namespaces, and actively acting to keep them ignorant for a longer period, and ultimately defeating the purpose stated by the defender of the redirect (involve more, and new, editors). Right, I have no data supporting my guesses, do you have supporting the redirect is useful? None that I can see. Zero usefulness, or near zero, versus some harm equals delete - Nabla (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. People have sometimes complained that the articles for deletion process is too obscure, and the average person would not be able to find out about it. I don't know whether these complaints are accurate. But if they are accurate, then deleting this redirect would make it harder for people to find out about the AfD process, and that would be unhelpful to some users. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:06, 28 December 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.