Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 23

February 23
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 23, 2014.

Mike Harmon Racing
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 7%23Mike Harmon Racing

List of unsolved problems in Cryptography



 * 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) 19:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * List of unsolved problems in Cryptography → Category:Uncracked codes and ciphers (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete this is a fairly obtuse redirect. The category is not a list, since we don't have an article on every code and cipher. Further solution and crackability are not the same. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 10:23, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:REDLINK as there is clearly scope for such a list. Thryduulf (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, misleading redirect. -- intgr [talk] 12:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDUP. 5.70.168.29 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Useful redirect until such time as someone creates this article. Wishing it existed doesn't serve anyone and the redirect certainly does not prevent it's creation. It points to subjects that would be included in such a list article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't create an article at this name due to its bad capitalization. and WP:REDLINK would seem to indicate it would be deleted for the reasons you want to keep it. Being uncracked does not mean it is unsolved. It can be solved without being cracked. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 06:00, 27 February 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.

Bengaloru International Film Festival 2012 Movies List



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Bengaloru International Film Festival 2012 Movies List → Bengaluru International Film Festival 2012 Movies List (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]


 * Delete - Obvious misspelling of "Bengaluru". No link to the page. Nadesai (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - plausible misspelling. Wily D 16:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It has never been spelt "Bengaloru". No link to the article any and not a likely search term either. Nadesai (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's neither here nor there. A person who only heard it mentioned, for instance, but had never seen it in writing, might reasonable guess this spelling rather than the correct one. Similar things are likely to happen to someone who with a passing familiarity who forgot. That the article was created at the wrong location is prima facia evidence that it's a likely mistake to make. Unlikely but plausible search terms are kept as redirects because they get used often - just far less often than the proper term, but since there's absolutely no benefit to deleting them, making the encyclopaedia less usable to those with less familiarity with a subject (or fat sausage fingers) is a bad idea, bad manners, bad karma, etc. Wily D 17:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WilyD. For people used to English spelling this is a very plausible misspelling and thus a likely search term. We only have one month of stats to go by (January) when it was a redirect for the whole month and wasn't being discussed anywhere, but it got 10 hits then which is above background noise backing up that people are using the redirect. Not having any links is explicitly irrelevant to whether a redirect is kept or not, and being an "obvious" misspelling is not a valid reason either: the criterion is "plausibility" - if it is plausible that people will make it when looking for the article then the redirect is valuable, if it isn't then we delete it. For example "Untied States" and "Unired States" are equally obvious mispellings. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 24 February 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.

User:Gabriela N



 * 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) 19:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


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


 * User:Misses001 → Gabriela N (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Cross-namespace redirect. There is no user Gabriela N. However, the user who created the article Gabriela N apparently moved her/his talk page to User talk:Gabriela N. See my comments at User talk:Misses001 Cnilep (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm adding User:Misses001. It appears that the user may have created a draft of the article there, and inadvertently left a string of redirects at the User and User talk pages when she/he moved the draft article to article space. Cnilep (talk) 03:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget user:Gabriela N to user:Misses001. This will prevent anyone registering that username and prevent any possible confusion that may result (accidental or otherwise). Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * user:Misses001 should be converted to a soft redirect. This maintains the link that the user appears to want while removing the confusion that may occur from landing at an article when expecting a user page. This also means that my suggested retarget above will not result in a double redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete both user:Gabriela N/user talk:Gabriela N should be deleted as a non-existent user. But first user talk:Gabriela N needs to be histmerged into user talk:Misses001. user:Misses001 should not redirect into articlespace. This will cause people who first click on the user and then click on talk to leave messages for the user at the article's talk page, clearly a harmful redirect. The  redirects are harmful as they are masquerading as a user who doesn't exist, and occupying the spot a new user may choose as their user name, and then having the same problem of redirection leaving user messages on an article's talk page.  -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 09:57, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the talk page has now been histmerged -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete both and histmerge per 70.50; maintaining new-user mixups like this makes our database more toxic and has the potential to create problems down the line. —  Scott  •  talk  17:55, 24 February 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.