Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 26

January 26
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 26, 2014.

Jimmy Page's house



 * 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 Jimmy Page. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jimmy Page's house → The Tower House (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I'd like this redirect to be deleted for reasons of privacy. Though Page's ownership of the house is discussed on his biographical article, and the Tower House article itself, I feel that these are the only relevant places to include this information. This redirect sets a dangerous precedent for BLPs who possess notable houses, as it appears when one searches for Page in the search box, falsely establishing a casual relationship with this information. The rationale given for creating the redirect by User:Spesh351 was "redirect for people who know about,but not the name", which I feel is an inappropriate use of the redirect function. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Jimmy Page. Redirecting to his biographical article doesn't have any privacy implications, nor create any causal relationships with the property (whatever you mean by that). It also wont have to be updated if he moves. In most circumstances though, helping people find something they don't know the proper name for is one of the primary purposes of redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Thryduulf. Incidentally, nom did not say causal relationship, he said casual relationship. Does that make it clearer? Si Trew (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, thanks! Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Jimmy Page. Thryduulf explains the reasoning well. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:29, 28 January 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.

First Battle of Picardy



 * 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, but feel free to replace it with an article if ready. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * First Battle of Picardy → Race to the Sea (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I'm working on an adaptation of the Race to the Sea page to be a hub for a group of pages User talk:Keith-264/sandbox3 here, so want to use First Battle of Picardy as a link to a seperate page, although there aren't enough sources in English to begin a new page immediately. Can the redirect be suppressed to enable this? RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * NOTE the redirect has not been tagged. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've now added the tag. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep if you want to redirect "" to someplace else, you don't need to delete the redirect, just repoint it. If you want to write a new article at, then just overwrite the redirect by WP:EDITing it. As your new hubpage isn't active yet, the current article covers Picardy. Instead, I suggest you just create a stub at when you implement your hubpage into mainspace. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I don't know how to repoint or create a stub, do I just paste in when I'm ready? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You just edit the redirect like you would do any other page. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep as I noted in answer to your question at WT:RFD (which I spotted before this nomination), it's far better to write some content, even if only a couple of lines, at the section on your new page or as a new stub article. A quick google search found that should give enough information to start you off. The WikiProject Military history will not unlikely be able to help if you let them know it is needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate.Keith-264 (talk) 09:50, 27 January 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.

Martin Guise (Royal Navy officer)



 * 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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:22, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Martin Guise (Royal Navy officer) → Martin Guise (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. Redundant following renaming of article from Martin Guisse. No disamb required Davidships (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is arguably unneeded, but it harms nothing and may be helpful 172.9.22.150 (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as . Redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect, and as the page was at this title from 2007 there is a high possibility of incomming external links and bookmarks to that location. Breaking those links would be disruptive while bringing no benfits. Thryduulf (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - sends the reader to what they're looking for, and no rationale has been presented for deletion. Wily D 10:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A rationale has been presented for deletion. I don't know why you always say it hasn't when you mean "I disagree". Si Trew (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A rationale, but not a valid rationale under policies and guidelines. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, no one has suggested any reason that deleting this redirect is desirable/a good idea/whatnot. Wily D 10:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep: old links may exist, no harm is done by this redirect, no point in deleting it. Pam  D  12:32, 28 January 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.

Willing off



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


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

No mention of the term in the target article. Pam D  12:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are no uses of "willing off" in this sense anywhere I can find on google other than here, Urban Dictionary (the very definition of an unreliable source), coincidental co-locations (and several of them are misspellings of "willing, of course") and strings of words to try and attract search engines (and given the age of this redirect it wouldn't surprise me if it was the source of many of them, although I imagine that's an untestable hypothesis). Thryduulf (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per Thryduulf (I also searched). Si Trew (talk) 02:25, 28 January 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.

Janet Hunter



 * 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 the appropriate section of North Tyneside Council election, 2004. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Topperfalkon nominated Joan Bell and Barbara Stevens for deletion at RfD yesterday with the rationale "As per deletion rationale for Janet Hunter." Janet Hunter was deleted by 2over0 with the log entry "Expired PROD, concern was: Non-notable councilperson, not mentioned at the target article". It was prodded by JamesBWatson. I have restored it as redirects are not eligible for PRODding, instead I've combined all three redirects into one discussion here.
 * Janet Hunter → North Tyneside (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Joan Bell → North Tyneside (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joan_Bell&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Barbara Stevens → North Tyneside (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barbara_Stevens&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

It seems that all three people were councillors with articles that were redirected to North Tyneside Council in 2006 for not being notable. In 2007 the article on the council was merged to North Tyneside and these now double redirects were retargetted by a bot. In December 2013 the article about the council was spun out again, this time to North Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council and articles have been created about individual elections. So I am recommending retargetting the redirects as follows:
 * Janet Hunter → North Tyneside Council election, 2004
 * Joan Bell → North Tyneside Council election, 2004
 * Barbara Stevens → North Tyneside Council election, 2004. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Recommendation seems reasonable to me. My main concern with the redirects was there was no clear mention of them in the article, and the names felt common enough that arbitrarily redirecting to an article that didn't mention those names would be confusing if someone was searching for someone else similarly named. But I admit I didn't dig into their respective histories to figure out where they came from.--Topperfalkon (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Something along those lines was probably my reasoning. These recommendations look like a good idea now. Looking back through my log, we can add:


 * Diane Page → North Tyneside Council election, 2004
 * to the list. Good work, Thryduulf. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I can't think what I was thinking of when I declined an A3 speedy deletion on the grounds that it wasn't an article, and put a PROD on it instead: I know full well that PRODs too are only for articles. That aside, the current redirects to an article which makes no mention of the people in question are pointless. The people involved have very low notability, but since they are at least mentioned in North Tyneside Council election, 2004, we may as well retarget the redirects to the relevant sections of that article, as suggested. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Retarget per Thryduulf with the consensus of JamesBWatson and yours truly Si Trew (talk) 02:27, 28 January 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.