Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 13

April 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 13, 2014.

World Market



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * World Market → Cost Plus, Inc. (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The primary use of "world market" is as an economic concept. The uncapitalised version world market redirects to Market (economics), and the capitalised version should also do so. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget per BrownHairdGirl. Si Trew (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget for the sake of constancy, but with a hatnote pointing to Cost Plus, Inc because Cost Plus's stores could reasonably be called this. Tideflat (talk) 04:32, 14 April 2014 (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.

Meat and two veg



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Meat and two veg → Meat and three (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete or write article. The target article describes a style of American restaurant. Meat and two veg is a traditional British style of meal – a wholly different concept on multiple levels. Somebody searching for "Meat and two veg" is likely to be looking for the style of meal, not the American "meat and three" restaurant format. If somebody is able to write an article to replace the redirect then go ahead, otherwise I argue that the redirect should be deleted. — Smjg (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom or 'redirect to Wiktionary'. It's also British/Irish slang to mean the male genitals, and is described thus at meat and two veg at sense 2 (of 2), but unfortunately that entry has no references. It's completely different from a meat and three. I don't know how one could write an article since it is not something for which I imagine one could find much WP:RS: all my search links are to dictionary definitions or used as newspaper headlines and not to e.g. a public house offering meals or whatever, it is very much slang. Nothing wrong with slang I use it a lot but I think it would be hard to create an RS article out of it, thus I say delete.


 * The nearest I got for RS were these articles in British newspapers:


 * but it's not mentioned in the body of any of the articles themselves just used in the headline. There are loads of recipe sites etc but they are not RS.


 * Those citations are worth adding as dictionary references to Wiktionary, I think, but I can't see we can make an article out of it. Si Trew (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2014 (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.

Lisa Walker



 * 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 withdrawn by nominator. Steel1943  (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggest deletion This was created as a redirect to the Elizabeth Walker disambiguation page. However, it has incoming links - there appears to be one notable Lisa Walker, and all her redlinks have now turned blue, meaning an article on her is far less likely to be created. Rather than change her name to add a disambiguator (seeing as she is the only one), she should remain a redlink. The same goes for the reirects created at the same time, Beth Walker and Elisabeth Walker. They can then be added to the disambiguation page as redlinks. Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Lisa Walker → Elizabeth Walker (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Beth Walker → Elizabeth Walker (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Elisabeth Walker → Elizabeth Walker (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisabeth_Walker&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * ' Delete' per WP:REDLINK. I might get different search results from you because I live in a landlocked language island, but the first thing from My Favourite Search Engine that comes up for me is Lisa Walker Jewellery in Germany. There is also Lisa Walker - Author but that appears to be self-published although her book "Sex lies and Bonsai" was reviewed in a short in the Sydney Morning Herald. Which Lisa Walker did you mean to be the only one to be notable? It's a fairly common name. Si Trew (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I worded it poorly, I meant that all WP redlinks were to the one Lisa Walker. With a bit of digging, I've managed to make a disambiguation page out of Lisa Walker (I've retained the redirect and redirect notice because, after starting a discussion, I didn't want to act unilaterally). However, Beth Walker and Elisabeth Walker aren't suitable for their own disambiguation pages, and so should be deleted and left as redlinks open for creation, as per WP:REDLINK. Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * DAB it per Boleyn. Nicely done. Si Trew (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Elisabeth Walker clearly usable as a R from typo if nothing else. DAB Lisa per nom (or just merge Lisa into Elizabeth as a variant dab) Weak Keep Beth, considering what Elizabeth is used for, with variant spellings. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Wasn't Betty Walker the landlady of the Rovers Return in Coronation Street for many years? Although that article is for a Jewish-American comedian. I've never really followed that soap so no idea and maybe have the surname wrong. I can see both sides of both sides with this one: was going to suggest spelling it "Elisabeth" instead of "Elizabeth" was misleading but likely typo; but then where do we stop do we have Bet, Beth, Betty, Libby, Lilabet (Queen Elizabeth II's childhood moniker), Lila, Lilly, Lisa came up the other day for the name of a space program(me) (it never occurred to me before then that it is a contraction). It seems "Elizabeth" is a name that attracts an enormous number of epithets and surely we can't do all of them. Si Trew (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment I feel the comments haven't (yet) addressed the issue of misleading redirects, i.e. bluelinks to the swimmer Elisabeth Walker when they should be blue, same issue for Beth. Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:DLR -- a disambiguation page is not misleading. If the person has no page on Wikipedia, then that does not indicate that the bluelink has no other uses, as clearly this does, so, turn the linkages into (Elisa)Beth Walker (xyz) etc for every case. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep 1. It would be unproductive to users who, upon searching for Elizabeth Walker, accidentally typed "Elisabeth Walker" and, instead of being redirected to Elizabeth Walker, were confronted with: "There were no results matching the query. You may create the page "Elisabeth Walker", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." The same reasoning applies to Lisa Walker and Beth Walker as well as to Lizbeth Walker, Lisbeth Walker, Bess Walker, Liz Walker, Elisa Walker, Lizzy Walker or Lizzie Walker. None of these names currently has a Wikipedia article and, if an article highlighting one of these names were to be created, the already-existing redirect can then be converted.
 * 2. At this point, it would seem counterintuitive to leave the three name variations submitted here for deletion as redlinks, while retaining all the others. The topic thus naturally segues to the redlinks themselves. The single Wikipedia use of "Elisabeth Walker" is for a Canadian paralympian whose name appears as a redlink in ten articles. Anyone typing her name into Wikipedia would be redirected to the Elizabeth Walker disambiguation page, where one of the entries states: Elisabeth Walker (born 1977), Canadian Paralympic swimmer who, at age 15, competed in Barcelona's 1992 Summer Paralympics and continued in 1996 Atlanta, 2000 Sydney and represented Canada at the 2004 Summer Paralympics in Athens; named Canada’s Assistant Chef de Mission for London 2012 Paralympic Games, instead of being confronted with a user-unfriendly redlink.
 * 3. The same reasoning applies to redlinks (now seen as bluelinks) flowing towards Lisa Walker, Beth Walker or Liz Walker. The most reasonable solution is not to delete these names, thus leaving them as redlinks until the creation, if ever, of articles using these names as main headers, but simply to unlink the redlinks (now seen as bluelinks) within the articles themselves and negate the links which flow to these names. To take the paralympian as example, the ten articles also feature scores of unlinked names for various paralympians, while someone decided to add links only to Elizabeth Walker's name, without bothering to create a biographical entry for her. The overabundance of such redlinks in various articles is distracting to the eye and unlikely to spur creation of articles. &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment If you unlink redlinks to notable people, anyone looking to create an article would not have an easy opportunity to do so. We don't unlink notable people. I've spent hours creating articles on Eliza Walkers and Elizabeth Walkers to negate this. Boleyn (talk) 10:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Every name which appears in any part of Wikipedia is not automatically notable, and notability is not conferred or bestowed simply on an editor's whim in redlinking it or even by creating an entry with such an individual as its primary topic, as exemplified by the arguments raised in frequent discussions regarding Notability and Proposed deletion of biographies of living people &mdash;Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 22:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment The only way to keep to WP:REDLINK and WP:DISAMBIGUATION was to resolve all the misdirected links here, in many cases creating the articles so they could be hatnoted. In the end, it's better, but it took me two days, and yes, I resent spending my holidays cleaning up this. Withdraw nomination as through hard work I've sorted it all. Now I'm off to take a wikibreak to consider why on earth I bother. Boleyn (talk) 11:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Commment. I wonder why you bother when firstly you should have a proper break and secondly it hadn't, as far as I see it, achieved consensus, so now we are trying to hit a moving target. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2014 (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.

Zero1 Australian National Championship



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Zero1 Australian National Championship → Pro Wrestling Zero1 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The title no longer belongs to Zero1 so the re-direct is no longer correct. The title is now owned by non notable promotion Wrestle Rampage. This change is mentioned in the Zero1 article. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Then by your own reasoning it should stay, if it is mentioned in the article and is a useful redirect then it should stay. It's not a question of it being right but being useful. But looking at the stats this was very very rarely hit (most days zero, max days 2 in the last ninety days, mostly zero: it's gone up a bit the last few days to a whopping 12 but that is I imagine just cos it is brought here for discussion) so if it is incorrect and rarely hit, might as well let the search engine do the work. Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well then it needs to be fully protected because there's an IP hopper about who will try and re-create the article in it's own right thinking that it's still a Zero1 title when it's not. That's the point - it's NOT a Zero1 title and belongs to someone else. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are you suggesting it would be WP:COPYVIO? I don't know anything about this, but if someone owns the copyright and it is going to the wrong place, at least in Engish law and I imagine in Australian law that would be passing off and should be remedied very quickly indeed. Si Trew (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think applying that IRL will happen. The issue here is preventing the IP hopper from doing it, which is much harder to police in the sense you're speaking of it - except by deleting this redirect. It's the most that can be done. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you're right. And really I meant trademark not copyright. WP doesn't generally use trademark signs (in the sense we don't put "®" or "TM" or "SM" per WP:TRADEMARK, but we do of course acknowledge the trademark holder's rights, so if this is passing off – or simply wrong – it should be deleted. Si Trew (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2014 (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.