Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 7

September 7
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 7, 2012

Genda_Shigyo



 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 19:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → List of oldest companies (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Propose deleting the redirect because it is a circular link back to the table containing the link - frustrating for newbs and uninformative for incoming searchers. A red link would indicate state of wiki's content on Genda Shigyo and perhaps prompt creation of an informative page. 203.96.131.44 (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete to encourage article creation from redlink.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:REDLINK. Thryduulf (talk) 00:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Circular link and at first glance, no reputable sources in English.  Kinkreet ~&#9829;moshi moshi&#9829;~ 23:24, 11 September 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.

Bakumatsu Kourinden Oni



 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → ja:ONIシリーズ (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

"Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers" as per WP:SRD. KTC (talk) 20:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete to encourage transwiki or creation of article.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. There is no English language article on this topic so links to the title should be red. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 10 September 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.

The Shadow (2011 film)



 * 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) 21:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


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

Deletion. The Telugu film article which it redirects to was never officially titled The Shadow. At the time of production, there were speculations and rumors about the title, but never was anything officially announced. This was a case of the film article being title based on rumors. Currently no one uses the title The Shadow to refer the film. And moreover, there is a new Telugu film releasing soon with a similar name (Shadow). I think its best to delete the redirect to avoid any confusion it might cause. krZna (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The page was created under this title because of the speculations and the target as of now still says its been "initially known under the working title The Shadow". That is as a valid redirect and we have dab pages to sort out the ambiguities that arise as long folks insist on creating articles as early as possible. --Tikiwont (talk) 20:15, 15 September 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.

On the genus of a graph



 * 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 orginal title with content  moved to (history of) Determination of the genus of a graph. Tikiwont (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → Genus (mathematics) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Graph embedding (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Generic but implausible rephrasing of the target article title. Surely not every Wikipedia article with title "X" requires a redirect with title "On X" or "On the X". (This redirect was recently created so preservation of incoming third-party links is not an issue.) Psychonaut (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Doesn't seem to serve any purpose. —JmaJeremy  ✆  ✎  23:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I converted it from some actual content (recently created) into the redirect. I only didn't do WP:CSD so that the creator could see where it went. He appeared at the time to be sandboxing some stuff, but his behavior demonstrates he doesn't care about working for long-term improvement of WP and this redirect itself certainly isn't doing that either. DMacks (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Adding new comment later, with alt reasoning based on later changes; don't want to break chronology of relisting process. DMacks (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - useful for navigation (which is demonstrated by the fact that someone felt the need for an article there), no rationale presented for deletion. Wily D 07:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You are entitled to your opinion that it is useful for navigation, but it is clearly false that I have presented "no rationale" for the deletion. I see you have been posting variants of this bizarre claim to several other duly made nominations as well. Is it possible that something in your site customizations or browser settings is preventing you from seeing the nominators' statements? —Psychonaut (talk) 08:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You haven't presented a reason to delete; you've made a statement against an assumed rationale for keep, but there's nothing in the nominating statement that indicates why it would be a good idea to delete it, or how it would improve the encyclopaedia. Only that you don't think it's plausible anyone would ever use the title to try to find a relevant article. Wily D  10:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have presented much the same rationale for deletion as the eighth example listed at the top of this page under Redirects for discussion. And the creator of the article did not do so because he felt it would be useful for navigation to an article; rather, he was using Wikipedia as a free web host for a book, and was creating mainspace articles named for each chapter and section. See Basic definitions and background for another example. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That remains not a rationale for deletion, despite some poor instructions on a process page. Wily D  08:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not fit Wikipedia naming conventions, seems like a good case for A10 to me. Since it's now a redirect, R3 as a misnomer would fit as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's no longer a redirect. And David Eppstein, did you look at the edit history?  The initial draft was an article, not a redirect, written by a mathematician who is fairly clueless about Wikipedia's conventions.  I saw him speak at a seminar at MIT once.  He can do some good stuff if he learns Wikipedia's customs.  He started an article and left it in a very incomplete state.  It got misunderstood by someone who redirect it to genus (mathematics).  In some ways, the misunderstanding is understandable, but in my view, redirecting it was a mistake.  I've re-written it in a form that is closer to Wikipedia's usual usages.  It is still a stub, and needs more work. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It's still a redirect for me. Whatever changes may have been made to it since its nomination don't appear to have any bearing on the "keep" or "delete" arguments presented so far. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: There have been significant changes to this redirect since the nomination was made (see comment below for details).


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)




 * The history of the last week or so is as follows:
 * On 31 August reverted  back to the a stub article it had been with some rewritting and added an introduction.
 * He moved the article to, leaving a redirect behind and leaving the comment above.
 * A few hours later, (almost certainly completely unaware that this discussion existed, as the RfD template was removed with the conversion to an article) redirected the stub to Graph embedding without leaving an edit summary.
 * A bot then updated the target of to Graph embedding to avoid a double redirect.
 * So, it wasn't a redirect but now is, given the significant changes I felt a relisting was most appropriate. I've updated the target above, added the RfD template and will notify the users who have commented above. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Graph embedding is a better redirect than Genus (mathematics). But I still don't see the point of having a redirect from this name. Graph genus (which currently exists and points to the same place) or Genus (graph theory) (which currently doesn't exist) would make sense as redirects for this subject. On the genus of a graph is just not how we name things. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I was asked to revisit this discussion based on changes made since I originally commented. I don't have an opinion on which target the redirect should have if it survives (let the advanced math(s) folks figure out the closest meaning) or the content of that article. However, I confirm my position that this redirect shouldn't exist at all, as a non-standard name and unlikely specific search-term (reader would have to type this exact phrase and it's not the formal name of this topic). DMacks (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Reaffirming delete - Like DMacks I was contacted to revisit my !vote. I can confirm that I would still say delete. It was originally created as an article which would have been deleted at AfD, then turned into a redirect. It was moved to Determination of the genus of a graph which is a more appropriate title, and seems like a reasonable search term. The redirect up for discussion here does not seem to serve any purpose. —JmaJeremy  ✆  ✎  19:02, 9 September 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.

June of 1941



 * 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 to Retarget to 1941. Tikiwont (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


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

Delete While this is a major event of 1941 June, it isn't the only one, as seen in 1941. Further Barbarossa extended beyond June. 76.65.131.248 (talk) 08:11, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep it's a high priority symbolic date for Russians. It also marks a major turning point in world history. Rjensen (talk) 09:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Would we be doing that for every date significant to every group in the world? (keeping/creating such redirects) -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Lots of things happened in June 1941, and redirecting it to a single event is highly inappropriate. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While I would discourage creating such redirects, I think retargeting to 1941 would be fine. TimBentley (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget per TimBentley. This wasn't the only event that month, and while Operation Barbarossa is the most significant event for Russians I don't think that holds worldwide. Given that we have an article which functions as a disambiguation page would in linking to the articles we have associated with the month it makes most sense to redirect users there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget : a very natural solution. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Question/comment. I think the point, made several times above, that this wasn't the only thing to happen in June 1941 is mostly irrelevant. If a whole bunch of things happened that month but this was the only one to be commonly known by the name "June of 1941", then this redirect would certainly be appropriate (with a hatnote for 1941 at the top of Operation Barbarossa). However, I'm not sure that it is known by that name – can anyone clarify this? – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the fall of Crete is certainly a big event in June 1941. And Google shows no preference to the whole Operation Barbarossa as "primary" either. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 03:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to 1941.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:40, 10 September 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.

Tom Walshaw a.k.a. Tubal Cain (model engineer)



 * 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. Tikiwont (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


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

Delete - we have the two appropriate forms, given name and pen name, as article & redir already Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article was at this title for ~18 months, so it is needed for attribution purposes and there will continue to be incomming links to it for some time to come. It's not doing any harm, so deletion would inconvenience people for no benefit. It'd be worth marking this as though. Thryduulf (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently I created the redirect some time back when I moved a misnamed page. I'm more or less indifferent as to whether the redirect is retained or not, though as redirects are cheap, if it were up to me, I'd just leave it be. older ≠ wiser 01:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - does no harm, might be linked from somewhere. But how sad that people were taking time to talk about this harmless redirect rather than doing any cleanup to the target article (done now, though there's always scope for further improvement). Pam  D  07:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't appreciate the implication that all I've done today is to waste collective time picking on poor little redirects. 8-( As for "might be linked from somewhere", then we have tools to test for that, and no it isn't (except deletion discussions). I happened to have checked and fixed those already, or was that just wasting time too? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * We can only know about links from within the English Wikipedia, and as we can fix them we don't need to worry about them. The important links for this sort of case are those from elsewhere on the internet and in people's memories, bookmarks, etc. - we can never know where most of them are and have the ability to update only a fraction of those we do, we can only infer their existence from probability and page view statistics. We should be good internet citizens and avoid contributing to link rot when we don't have to. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Then we should immediately close AfD too, just in case we ever delete a page that some other site has linked to. This is a nonsensical argument.Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't be ridiculous, if you actually what I wrote you'll note I said "we should ... avoid contributing to link rot when we don't have to". There are many cases where there are very good reasons why we should delete both articles and redirects, it's just that the benefits of keeping this redirect outweigh the harm caused by deleting it. Redirects are cheap, so the threshold for deleting them is very much higher than for an article - this is easily summed up by the fact that being harmless is a good reason to keep a redirect but not enough to keep an article. WP:R lists reasons why redirects might be deleted. The only one that is possibly relevant here is #8 "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful.", however as the article was at this title for 18 months it can hardly be described as either novel or obscure. On the other side of the coin, WP:R lists common reasons for keeping redirects, points 1 (useful page history) and 4 (deletion would break incoming links) clearly apply and points 3 (aid searches) and 5 (they're useful) possibly do. When there is a very weak case for deletion, and several stronger ones for keeping, the benefits of the latter course are clear. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep useful for navigation, having another redirect doesn't motivate deletion of this one. Wily D 07:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - necessary for navigation in article histories. Staszek Lem (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete unlikely search term with zero incoming links outside of the RfD. MilborneOne (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * While it might not be a title that will often be searched for (except by those who remember the article was at this title), it is a title that will have been linked to during the 18 months the article was here and many of these links will remain pointing here for a long time to come. It is also worth noting that having no incoming internal links is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect - see WP:R points 2 and 6. Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 9 September 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.