Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 August 7

August 7
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 7, 2013.

World's Greatest Encyclopedia



 * 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 speedily deleted per the G11 criterion by  —  PublicAmpers &#38;  (main account • talk • block) 21:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)


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

Delete as POV/spam Siuenti (talk) 06:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Makes me blush when I think how utterly true it is. Truly harmless. –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 11:59, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Not a reason to keep. Utterly pathetic.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 01:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, Delete then, if you must (obvious G11 ).
 * Retarget to The Wikipedia Revolution. Entirely implausible that someone looking for Wikipedia would use this as a search term. Certainly it is POV, and not harmless since it is potentially misleading, because Encyclopædia Britannica has at least an equally valid claim to this title. I am suggesting the retarget because it is just possible that someone mis-remembering the book title might use this as a search term. If that is considered too remote then I have no objection to deletion, either. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete immediately per WP:NPOV. There is absolutely no reason for Wikipedia to proclaim itself as this title in such a pathetically biased and opinion-based manner. I find it disgusting that such an attribution even exists, and that experienced editors are actually supporting that it remains as a redirect. So despicable.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 01:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Did somebody get up on the wrong side of the bed this morning? –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 10:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I came across as angry, but the point needed to be made. I do not support keeping biased material on Wikipedia for fun.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 06:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G11. Self-congratulation is fine, but should never take place in mainspace. See WP:SELFREF, WP:NPOV, etc. We discredit ourselves as an institution by having content like this. — PublicAmpers &#38;  (main account • talk • block) 19:16, 12 August 2013 (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.

Anusha bhagat



 * 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 12:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


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

Should be deleted. → Vijay [talk] 18:45, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why? This seems to be a redirect from a non-notable spouse; I think these are normally kept. Siuenti (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an unprintworthy (lowercase "b") spousal search term and harmless. –  Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 19:28, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep – a redirect from a nn spouse seems fine. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag with R from spouse. Delete per the existence of the redirect that is correctly capitalized: Anusha Bhagat. A second, incorrectly capitalized redirect is completely unneeded, since any link to the name should already be capitalized and since a search that is missing capitalization will follow the correctly capitalized redirect anyway.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment – not a reason to delete. Redirects are cheap and established redirects should only be deleted for good reason eg if they are harmful … WP:R … when as here the redirect is harmless it should remain because there is no benefit in deleting and the possibility of breaking links in mirrors, for example, could cause harm. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: The harm is in the inconsistency. Unless a redirect is to be made for every possible instance of missing capitalization in every name that is a correctly capitalized redirect on Wikipedia, there is widespread inconsistency. Mirror sites are irrelevant here; RFD is concerned with Wikipedia, not its mirror sites. If there is absolutely no reason to keep any one of a gigantic number of redirects, suddenly they do not seem so cheap. A buildup of unnecessary redirects is certainly not beneficial to Wikipedia or any of its mirror sites; it only adds to clutter.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 00:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry but neither 'inconsistency' not 'clutter' are policy compliant reasons for deletion. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Then are you saying that you would apply the same argument for keeping this redirect to every other incorrectly capitalized name that is a redirect on Wikipedia? Many of them have been deleted, and this is certainly not a special case.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 22:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hmm. "Many of them have been deleted"?  Could you name one that has been deleted solely for R from other capitalisation? –   Paine Ellsworth   C LIMAX ! 10:58, 13 August 2013 (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.