Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 27

January 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 27, 2014.

C:WPCATSUP



 * 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * WPCATSUP → Category:WikiProject Category Suppression (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

C: prefix created at same time as CAT:WPCATSUP in November 2009. 16 pageviews in last 90 days. CAT:WPCATSUP also has similar pageviews, with a recent peak due to User talk:PC78. I have also marked the WikiProject WP:WPCATSUP inactive, as I couldnt see collaboration activity since the initial work done by this WikiProject and their to-do list never had any tasks on it. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Deleteas  is not a namespace in any sense. No need to support confusing namespace-suggestions. -DePiep (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. "C:" has historically been a perfectly valid PNR prefix, and nowhere that I have been able to find is there a consensus that they are now regarded as bad. There is consensus that we should have the concept of a deprecated prefix, but no consensus yet about exactly what that means, and discussion has yet happened about which prefixes are deprecated, so that part of the rationale is vastly premature at best. Inactive projects make poor targets for new shortcuts, but unless there is a need to reuse the shortcut for something else they do no harm once they exist, so the bulk of the nomination is irrelevant. Looking at the stats, this has consistently been getting 8-15 hits a month all through 2013, so its clear that it is still used, and as no evidence of harm has been presented, nor is any apparent for other reasons (and as explained elsewhere, being a CNR is not evidence of actual harm). "C: is not a namespace" is true but irrelevant - consensus is clear that some PNRs are good therefore simply being a PNR is not grounds for deletion. So what we have here is a redirect that has existed for over 4 years without any problems occurring, so keep is the only possible recommendation. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * As explained elsewhere, there is plenty of harm in CNR. There are costs; they need to be justified.  In the policy discussion it seemed like you understood this when you acknowledge some language around targets being of general community interest was needed.  Now you are voting keep on a redirect to a barely ever active wikiproject.  Prefixes are a way of justifying a large set all at once.  Special:Prefixindex/CAT: has few other uses, and has been accepted - it is even a namespace aliases on two English wiki projects.  C: was never an accepted prefix.  C: does have other uses, including articles. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do accept there is harm in some CNRs. I am just not seeing that there is harm in this CNR. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain that "historically been a perfectly valid PNR prefix". Apart from that some existed yesterday, I see no based history. Calling this  a "perfect" prefix for a shortcut is weisdd weird, since we already uise another prefix for the same target ns, and so this is introducing confusion in shortcut naming. Varying the prefix among shortcuts is like making the shortcut secret code -- quite the opposite if its intention. For this reasons too "C:" is not to be deprecated, it is a bad prefix from the moment of page creation. And, of course, this being an improbable variant mainspace cleanup reason is valid here. I don't know what you mean when you looked for "consensus that it is bad". Is this a new construct of reasoning? Quite simple: use common sense. Oh, and as we know for XfD's: if a discussion changes policy or guidelines, then we can apply consequences to a situation. There is no need to pause this thread. -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are instituting a false dichotomy between C: and CAT: - the existence of one does not preclude the existence of another. If some people prefer C: and some prefer CAT: then there is no reason not to have both - that's the beauty of a wiki, so most of your argument is utterly irrelevant. I really shouldn't have to keep reminding you that just because you don't like something, that does not make it bad or harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The existence of two shortcut names for Category: (C: and CAT:) is confusing, unless every shorcut in here is duplicated into both ns's. Otherwise, the user must remember which shortcut is used for a specific page. That is confusing. I do not require you to agree, but calling this statement "utterly irrelevant" is an impropoer comment. And when I describe that fact, you have no need to suggest it ias about a preference. That's two bad attitudes in this one response. Next time, please stick to the aqrguments presented. -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as "C:" is easier to type, and this is a shortcut. I wasn't aware that the C: prefix is now considered "deprecated", but that does not mean obsolete. If someone wants to set up a process to scour the wiki to replace all references from C: to CAT:, then I would be fine with deleting C: as long as CAT:WPCATSUP remains in place. Plus, all the good points that Thryduulf made. :-) &mdash; Will  scrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta )  17:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * re Thryd: "as "C:" is easier to type" ... but it is more confusing. (because one needs either to remember which of the abrbecviations is used, or duplicate each shortcut to cover both). Also, note that this is in mainspace which we are supposed to keep clean up to a more strong standard. -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * There are no references to this shortcut, except pages that document it exists, like this RfD. Who is using this shortcut?  Are you?  You are listed as "very active" member of the project according to WikiProject Category Suppression/Participants.  Also 'active' is user:Dheerajjoshi1991, who has one content edit, eight months ago, and user:Davidgothberg is listed as a friend of the project.  That is it.  The category contains WikiProject infrastructure, for a WikiProject which isnt doing anything, and somehow we are expected to believe that these 8-15 hits a month are people being satisfied somehow by the existence of the redirect? John Vandenberg (chat) 08:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - sends users to what they're looking for, and no argument has been presented to support deletion. Wily D 09:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These arguments were there, before you posted. The nom for starters. -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What WilyD means is that no arguments have been presented that he (iirc) regards as demonstrating that deletion is a desirable course of action. Interpreting the statement to mean that no arguments have been given at all is not unreasonable. I have recommended that he use different phrasing several times previously to avoid misunderstandings like this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WilyD, sorry I havent written everything wrong with each CNR at the outset. I am selective in my nominations, and descriptive as well but it gets quite repetitive and I also try to avoid being too pointed if it will hurt someone and isnt necessary.  In this case, I simply said this was an inactive project, and linked to User talk:PC78 for clues.  As user:Willscrlt is not offering an accurate assessment of the WikiProject, and you and user:Thryduulf would prefer to not look, I'll provide more detail.
 * This CNR is the only C: prefix redirecting to a WikiProject category. The only one.  There are no others.  No other WikiProject feels the need to have a C: prefix.  That is telling.  If it was an active WikiProject, I would have skipped it.  But not only is this an inactive WikiProject, it is a WikiProject that created lots of categories and templates and shortcuts about itself, but the WikiProject didnt get off the ground.  This wikiproject infrastructure that was created but never used has been slowly found and deleted, and then it was recreated again and deleted again.  In 2008 user:Kbdank71 deleted page Category:Category suppression supporting templates (deletion requested by User:Sardanaphalus). In 2009 user:Closedmouth deleted Category:User-class category suppression support pages, Category:Unassessed category suppression support pages, Category:Template-class category suppression support pages, Category:Category-class category suppression support pages, Category:Article-class category suppression support pages.  user:Od Mishehu deleted Category:Category suppression-supporting templates per Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 31 (nominated by user:WOSlinker).  After that CfD, on 15 November 2009, user: Willscrlt then created the slightly renamed Category:WikiProject Category Suppression supporting templates, Category:Category suppression support pages by priority, Category:Unknown-priority Category suppression support pages and many many more categories that were all essentially unpopulated and unpopulatable.
 * In 2010 User:Tone deleted Category:Category suppression support pages by priority (deletion requested by user:Skier Dude), user:Athaenara deleted Category talk:Category suppression support pages by priority, user:JamesBWatson speedy deleted Category:WikiProject Category Suppression participants (deletion requested by user:Sfan00 IMG), user:JoJan deleted Category:Unknown-priority Category suppression support pages (also requested by Sfan00 IMG) and user: RHaworth deleted Category:NA-priority category suppression support pages, Category:High-priority category suppression support pages, Category:Mid-priority category suppression support pages, Category:Low-priority category suppression support pages, Category:No-priority category suppression support pages  (also requested by Sfan00 IMG ).  In 2013 I deleted Category:Category-Class category suppression support pages, Category:WikiProject Category Suppression supporting templates, and WPCATSUPT. In 2014, I have deleted Category:User-Class category suppression support pages, Category:Template-Class category suppression support pages, Category:Project-Class category suppression support pages, Category:NA-Class category suppression support pages, Category:File-Class category suppression support pages, WikiProject Category Suppression/Templates/Cat class, WikiProject Category Suppression/Templates/Cat class/column, WikiProject Category Suppression/Templates/Class.  And there are 'speedy' (seven day wait) delete tags on WikiProject Category Suppression/Templates/Classicon, WikiProject Category Suppression/Templates/Classcol and a CfD at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_13.
 * The point of all this is, given what you now know about the target WikiProject category, who are these 8-15 people benefiting from this shortcut, if we are to take the pageview stats as evidence of real people benefiting from this shortcut? John Vandenberg (chat) 07:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * These statements of facts don't contain any facts that would motivate deletion, is the essential problem. Similarly, the nom contains statements of fact, but those facts don't motivate deletion.  That the redirects were deleted, but then recreated, is evidence that they are being used.  Active to inactive is a continuum, to be sure, and we're all likely to draw a line somewhere or another.  But without any rationale for deletion, and with a rationale for keeping, one can only support keeping the redirect. Wily D  09:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "That the redirects were deleted, but then recreated" - I don't follow you; which redirects are you talking about? John Vandenberg (chat) 10:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That a whole bunch of categories were deleted is completely irrelevant. The target of this redirect has not been deleted and so there is no issue with having a redirect to it. The only question this RfD is about is whether the redirect WPCATSUP should be kept, retargeted somewhere else or deleted. No matter how many times you make the same arguments, they do not show that deletion would improve the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It calls into question your statement "its clear that it is still used". Used by who?  It may have been used at some point, many years ago, but your assumption that "8-15 hits a month all through 2013" is proof of value needs to be revisited.  The only person listed as active on the WikiProject is not active on the WikiProject - I've checked their contributions for years.  The last category suppression work was in May 2009.  The WikiProject was created in November 2009.  So as far as I can see, and maybe I have missed something (User:Willscrlt please correct me), the WikiProject was never active.  So who is benefiting from this redirect?  We dont keep pages in mainspace unless they have some purpose now. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the person listed as active on the WikiProject is not active then it is most likely someone else (unless that person also edits anonymously). It really doesn't matter who finds a redirect useful, only that someone does. Unused redirects in mainspace get around 3-4 hits a month at most from bots, search engine spiders, that sort of thing. This redirect gets more than double that, consistently, so there is evidence of use. Thryduulf (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the target page doesn't mention C:WPCATSUP as a shortcut. Then I noticed that the same editor who nominated the shortcut for deletion has deleted the mention of it from the page! Not cool. &mdash; rybec   14:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 
 * Delete. Not only is this malformed (C: is not a pseudo-namespace), completely out of the ordinary (as John comments, "the only C: prefix redirecting to a WikiProject category"), but its target is inactive, meaning that nobody is looking for it. Completely pointless and serving only as part of the enormous collection of useless crud being maintained in our database by indiscriminate junk collectors with tortuous arguments for their hobby. Kill it, kill it, kill it. —  Scott  •  talk  11:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have left a note about this RfD at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Category Suppression. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. If it's not active and nobody is looking for it, then it's not needed.  --Kbdank71 13:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment: I'm not especially optimistic that a relist will give us a strong consensus, but it can't hurt.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. Oww, Owww, far too much red. This seems like a battle of RfD regulars being what would be called in article space WP:POINTY, but I can't discern that from all the noise. By default, Keep. Si Trew (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * So you didn't read the arguments and then say default as a conclusion? -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete This doesn't belong in article-land. If this was something used very frequently, or if it was an article category, maybe a different story, but it's not so it's not. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, mmmmm, catsup. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:11, 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.

Mod. Pathol.



 * 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) 17:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Mod. Pathol. → Nature Publishing Group (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete, per WP:REDLINK. The journal Modern Pathology is not even mentioned on the current target page and another suitable target doesn't seem to be available. Randykitty (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC) !!They indeed publish too many, see Category:Nature Publishing Group academic journals (and those are only those on which we have articles...), the complete list is here. --Randykitty (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh. I agree it makes no sense to have the redirect if it's not even mentioned. The NPG page doesn't even have a list of journals they publish, although it might make some sense to add that kind of a list there... unless the publish too many journals to fit comfortably on that page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If they can fit them on one page, so can we. Nature Reviews doesn't need all flavors listed on NPG, so our list would be even shorter. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep. Nature does seem to sprawl and one has to be careful checking it as an RS because it has plenty of journals that are not peer reviewed. But that does not make it invalid, indeed, redlinks are there to encourage an article to be created, q.v. WP:REDLINK c.f. ultra. Si Trew (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your comment, especially when you talk about redlinks and then say to keep it. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't get it either. Far as I can see, all NPG journals are peer reviewed. And the fact that this isn't a redlink, but should be one, is exactly why I proposed this for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I was distracted by something else. I should have given this my full attention. Mea culpa, I withdraw it. Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Withdraw what? You're not the person who nominated it. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC) Sometimes I'm a dope. Ego White Tray (talk) 06:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that my cock up confounded Ego's. He's quite right I didn't nominate it, I just cocked up in talking about it, and totally wrongfooted him, I think as he has now stricken that out, but I could be wrong... anyway certainly I didn't nominate it and when I said withdraw I didn't mean the nomination, I meant my own comments, which were made in good faith and after looking at the sources but just completely confused and meaningless, and it seems to get more so... if the talk back is not for this I have no idea what it is for.... Even more confused, but sincerely, Si Trew (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I got it now. I presume the talkback wasn't about this one but The Genome Wager etc infra. Sorry for confusing the confusion. Si Trew (talk) 02:00, 31 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.

Jeff Macke



 * 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. WJBscribe (talk) 14:00, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jeff Macke → Fast Money (CNBC) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

He appears on both Fast Money (CNBC) and Yahoo! Finance wiki pages, so it makes little sense to have this redirect as he is not "owned" by either. Better to have a wp:red link so someone creates a bio if he is notable. He seems to be a little bit so. Apparently he's no longer with CNBC since 2009 after that incident; this has more coverage of his move to Yahoo and also says he "was a hedge fund manager from 1999 to 2004 and has written for financial news outlets like TheStreet.com and Minyanville." TheStreet.com indeed has bio of him. I should note that the page was prodded once. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * On a purely pragmatic level, we could probably redirect the page to Yahoo! Finance because it has more info about him than the other page, but what if he changes jobs again? Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but doesn't WP:CRYSTAL cover that possibility? What if the universe collapsed tomorrow? Si Trew (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Better leave this red to encourage creation of an article. I'm not too keen on retargeting based on his being mentioned more on the Yahoo Finance page. Would we reverse that if the Fast Money article were expanded to include more about him? If a search term could logically lead to one of two pages, the solution is either a dab or a redlink (i.e., giving readers search results for the term), and a dab is clearly unsuitable in this case. --BDD (talk) 17:47, 3 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.

County Road 78A (Lee County, Florida)



 * 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, nomination withdrawn with no other delete !votes. (NAC) --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * County Road 78A (Lee County, Florida) → Florida State Road 78 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. There's nothing in the SR 78 article about CR 78A except a single link in the major intersections table. NE2 06:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, and add related route subsection in SR 78. When I looked at the edit history for the redirect, I noticed that when the redirect was created (coincidentally) a year ago, it pointed to "County Road 78A#Related Route." Upon looking through other articles of Florida State roads, I found that Florida State roads (some examples being Florida State Road 25, Florida State Road 200, and Florida State Road 867) have a related route subsection for CR xx-A. I think the best course of action would be to add a related route section for CR 78A in SR 78 and point the redirect back at "County Road 78A#Related Route." I will only consider deletion if there is a valid reason not to include the subsection. -- hmich 176 10:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and speedy close, since nominator now supports keeping the redirect. -- hmich 176 15:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - I created this redirect with the goal of expanding the CR 78A section in this article. I have a sandbox from last year that I haven't checked in a while, but I began a "related routes" section which I have pasted into the article. This obviously isn't perfect, but it's a start towards a solution. SO, now that there's a bit more info about CR 78A in the article, deleting the redirect doesn't seem necessary. &mdash; c16sh (speak up) 23:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - Redirect should either point to a list of county routes in Lee County or a section in SR 78 which should be created.  Dough 48  72  02:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, keep now. --NE2 03:27, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and target to proper section Ego White Tray (talk) 04:16, 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.

Gridncore



 * 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) 17:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


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

Wrong title. Useless redirect. XXN (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * comment R from typo -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 02:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a correctly tagged that has existed since 2005. Absolutely no reason to delete it now. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per Thryduulf. Si Trew (talk) 10:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - plausible tpyo, no rationale for deletion. Wily D 11:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Who suggested it should be deleted? Nom didn't. Si Trew (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The nom did, right below this !vote here, it says "Strong Delete" by the nominator. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, the nom said it below your comment, so you inserted a comment in the middle rather than put it afterwards. Sorry for me expecting things to go from top to bottom. Si Trew (talk) 01:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is dated to before you lodged your comment though, so you inserted a comment before the nominator as well; and as the nominator indicated deletion, it would apparently be what the nominator had in mind when s/he nominated this initially. (I was using "below this !vote to indicate this entire replychain) -- 70.50.148.248 (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strongly delete. This tag was added after i proposed it for deletion. It's a totally useless page. No one article links here, and never will be one. You must delete such pages without discussions. No reason to keep pages with obvious misspelled title. What′s the logic? If you will keep this page, then i suggest you to create next pages Grindcroe, Grindcoer, Girndcore and so on... Regards. XXN (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Creating and deleting are two different things. No, you shouldn't create a bunch of pages like that just because you feel like it - but once the page is there, there's no reason to delete it. We have no way of knowing if some other websites are linking to this misspelling, so by deleting, we would contribute to link rot for no benefit. And literally no benefit, since deleted pages are saved by the Mediawiki software, just not visible to most people, so we aren't even saving the tiny amount of disk space. One last note, when the misspelling tag was added is irrelevant, it should be there, so it doesn't matter when you add it. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In our old friend the discussion on Al Windisch-Graetz], one of arguments I made against deleting some of his thirty-three redirects was exactly to prevent the notion that every conceivable typo should be created as a redirect pre-emptively. But that argument was not held (or denied) in the closing consensus. So the point is moot.
 * As Ego puts it, creating and deleting are two different things. There is no need to second-guess possible typos and deliberately create them; that is what the search engine is for. But if they are there and relatively harmless, they may as well be kept. The sins of the father are not the sins of the child. Si Trew (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as possible typo.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 18:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - plausible typo, harmless and been around for years so deletion could break external links. The Whispering Wind (talk) 04:18, 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.

Wolpert-Sheldrake Genome Wager



 * 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. With all due respect to Si Trew—and I do respect him—I personally don't think an AfD for Sheldrake would have a snowball's chance of succeeding, as he's very well known in the parapsychology and skeptic communities, but you're free to do this yourself if you still think he's not notable. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Delete. These redirects are leftover promotional material from a user who came to Wikipedia exclusively to advocate for Rupert Sheldrake and has since been topic-banned. The redirects grant undue prominence to Sheldrake's pseudoscientific ideas.
 * Wolpert-Sheldrake Genome Wager → Rupert Sheldrake (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Wolpert-Sheldrake wager → Rupert Sheldrake (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wolpert-Sheldrake_wager&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * The Genome Wager → Rupert Sheldrake (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Genome_Wager&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The "wager" comes from a 2009 science magazine article authored by Sheldrake, and has not since gained notability. No independent reliable sources have covered it, scientific wager does not mention it, and there are no links to the redirects. Citing #5 and #8 in WP:RFD -- the redirect titles are promotional and presumptuous inventions of the initial creator, and have no relevance or recognizability to others. vzaak 03:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * delete - the first two are highly improbable search terms, but the search would still pull up as the first hits the Sheldrake and Wolpert articles. The third "Genome Wager" is so generic that it could be referring to hundreds of minor incidents, none of which have anything to do with Sheldrake and i bet that most people typing that term into the search engine would be WP:ASTONISHED upon landing at Rupert Sheldrake.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per TrPod. Secondary sources either resolve to quoting the Rupert Sheldrake article here, Sheldrake's article in New Scientist, or a Faber press release about it (here) which oddly calls that publication "The New Scientist". Si Trew (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Get rid of this - it's just the result of an obsessed fan creating a POV FORK, about something that isn't very important because essentially wagers are not how science works. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite the contrary. Every scientific theory is a wager. Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I shall assume good faith and Hanlon's razor in response to that: Science does not work on wagers between an extremely well respected scientist and a crank who is espousing ideas that are not even wrong, pre-scientific and contradindicated by known facts. Science works by publishing peer-reviewed articles and convincing one's peers, not by wagers of bottles of wine.  Wolpert is a scientist - Sheldrake isn't. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it is in good faith. Show me a man who knows everything and I shall show you a liar. Si Trew (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep Wolpert-Sheldrake wager. It appears this was partially merged into the main article. There are nearly identical sentences in them. Keeping that is required to preserve attribution/copyright per WP:CWW. It doesn't matter if the editor who wrote them was banned later. Additionally, I don't see how redirects can grant "undue prominence" for something that is discussed in the target article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, the text (still mostly present) in the target article was added by the same editor who wrote the expansion article, so the redirect can be deleted without breaking CCW, but I still don't see why the redirect is unsuitable. If someone wanted to read about it, it's not clear apriori in which of the two biographical articles they should look; Lewis Wolpert also has a page here, but it doesn't mention this wager. So the redirect points the reader to the right article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If the bar is set at "If someone wanted to read about it", then Wikipedia would have to include virtually everything under the sun. Or I don't understand your comment. In general, creating redirects that link to pseudoscientific views has the effect of giving those views undue prominence. Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia, etc etc. vzaak 18:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are misinterpreting what I said. If it's a plausible search term and topic of the target article, the redirect is justified. If your beef is that the Shelldrake article discusses the matter at all, this RfD is the wrong place to argue that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere. Wikipedia shouldn't be hijacked by special interest promoters who create redirects for each little thing in an article, hoping to score more page hits for the topic they are promoting. Some kind of notability standard needs to apply, though one which is less stringent than for regular articles. In this case the combination of pseudoscience, no independent coverage, and clear promotional aims is reason enough to delete. WP:redirects are cheap and WP:Disambiguations are cheap are essays, not policy, and don't address the pseudoscience-spam aspect we encounter here. vzaak 13:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:Dab The Genome Wager as clearly too generic; (actually move & redirect to lower case, then dab.) There were more worthwhile wagers with similar names and probably others. Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You've linked to an independent reliable source about a different wager. Are there independent reliable sources for the wager in question? "The genome wager" shouldn't exist until someone writes about a notable genome wager. vzaak 18:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no such requirement for dabs. If it's mentioned the target articles, it can be dabbed. If your beef is that the Shelldrake article discusses the matter at all, this RfD is the wrong place to argue that. If I google "genome wager", I get the New Scientist article (Wolpert-Sheldrake) as the 2nd hit. Good luck arguing it's not a plausible search term or insufficiently related to that. There's a distinction to be made between WP:GNG-type coverage that is needed to justify separate articles and mere dabs/redirects as explained in WP:redirects are cheap/WP:Disambiguations are cheap. You are tying to apply the notability standards for standalone articles to dabs and redirects. Someone not using his real name (talk) 07:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * DAB-with-one-direct issue addressed below. The cut & pasted arguments from above are addressed above. vzaak 13:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A hit in Google Books suggests this (topic) as another possible target, an earlier lottey-type wager rather than a two-man affair on the number of distinct genes in the human genome. With at least 3 candidates a dab is the best option for this. This older one could probably be mentioned in Noncoding DNA while the Mattick-Birney wager is probably best pointed to ENCODE, which has its own wiki page. Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * But those topics aren't covered on WP, are they? Are you proposing a DAB page which will have one DAB link? And obviously the DAB page wouldn't be "The genome wager", it would be "Genome wager". My objection is the the: the genome wager is straight advertisement, like it's some important, unique thing. A "Genome wager" DAB page is an unrelated matter. vzaak 13:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I think I have already said this, but all the searches come back once you go through a couple of articles either to Sheldrake's own article in New Scientist.


 * The horn of the problem is that in my opinion Rupert Sheldrake is not notable (not WP:N), but others may disagree. I have also had stuff published in scientific journals but I am not notable. Now, others may disagree and say that Sheldrake is notable, but the place to do that is AfD. In the mean time, the specific redirects (Wolpert-Sheldrake Genome Wager and Wolpert-Sheldrake wager are hard to argue against qua redirects. I believe this RfD should be closed but on doing so the closing admin should open an AfD for Rupert Sheldrake.


 * So for RfD, I suggest:
 * Keep Wolpert-Sheldrake wager
 * Keep Wolpert-Sheldrake Genome Wager
 * Retarget The Genome Wager to The Selfish Gene as plausible search term.
 * Close this discussion as ultra vires and Open an AfD on Rupert Sheldrake.

By the way this is almost irrelevent but we don't usually use the definite article ("The") as the start of article titles. I just created Genome Wager as a redirect to The Selfish Gene. ("The" of course is OK for that as the book's title.) I argue if "Genome Wager" is a likely search term then it is worth a redirect (where it might redirect to is a different matter). That is just adding salt to the fire, I know, and can go speedy delete once we clear this up. Si Trew (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is completely weird -- what does The Selfish Gene have to do with a genome wager? There's no such thing in the book. None of the above comment really makes sense to me. vzaak 17:11, 1 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.