Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 3

February 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 3, 2015.

Baracketology
Relisted, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 February 25%23Baracketology

Sandrine Bessora Nan Nguema



 * 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 wrong forum. [Editors and administrators at this page are not qualified to assess legal and privacy issues. If you feel this redirect violates the law, please contact Wikimedia's legal team directly at legal@wikimedia.org, where our staff will review the issues and take whatever action is necessary. Non admin closure.] Oiyarbepsy (talk) 00:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Sandrine Bessora Nan Nguema → Bessora (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sandrine_Bessora_Nan_Nguema&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Deletion.

1.Uncertainty as to the alternative name. This name is very often associated to a contractor, not a writer: no evidence it’s the same person. Would it be, the sources contain contentious material (address). As this writer is not widely known, we should be cautious.

2.Sources, of varying qualities, contradict: several names are attributed to this writer, who clearly stated that any publication of any legal name would be an invasion of privacy : Here’s a translation of this discussion : “ ''(…)several names circulate about me (…) Even if you have an indisputable source of my civil status, which is not the case, it would not be related to the reputation of the subject. It would not be an encyclopedic information, but a personal information whose publication would violate my right to privacy”''. This seems sensitive and calls to our delicacy.

3. The stat tool, gives this number of views for this redirect :  1 view last november, none in december, 15 on the 2015-01-28 (due to a discussion that began this day, here,  and here, and in my own talk page. 2 views on the 2015-01-30 and 2015-01-29. It suggests this redirect isn't in use at all. Dabbeydabbey (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. Note that this redirect is related to the following text from the Bessora artile which was removed by anonymous user 69.22.169.132 because the source was 404 and then by user Dabbeydabbey: "Sandrine Bessora Nan Nguema, better known as Bessora". See note on talk page. The cited reference is . However, the same information appears on other sites, including at least one scholarly journal and educational institution. --Big_iron (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Note this case in the supreme court : McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995): “Accordingly, an author's decision to remain anonymous, like other decisions concerning omissions or additions to the content of a publication, is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.”
 * This means that, including me, the right to anonymity affects everyone, not just the contributors to Wikipedia.
 * I object to any statement or disclosure of my civil status. I never confirmed or authorized the publication of any of the several names that were given to me. These are rumors instead of evidenced facts. My legal name is not of public interest.
 * It follows that this useless redirect, that violates Wikipedia rules concerning BLP, also violates the First Amendment (among other laws).
 * It has to be removed to ensure compliance with US law, in particular (the international laws guarantee the same rights). Bessora (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Strongly refuse jurisdiction. This is some kind of spat between legal whitewigs, by the sounds of it. But if they wish to involve the whole of WP in a private argument (rather queering the pitch for privacy: perhaps they haven't learned the clean hands doctrine yet and wish to baffle us with case law).
 * It sounds to me from the above that this is some kind of quasi-legal argument about a right to privacy that has to drag WP in. In which case, the matter should be referred to the Wikimedia Legal team, if either party under US or "international law" feels their "rights" have been infringed. Not to RfD, where we discuss, er, redirects. Note to all: Once again, I must remind you, The World is Not The United States.
 * If a contributor ishes to look up the relevant privacy laws in "international law", he shall find there is no such thing as "international law". There are sets of treaties between nations. For if not, as a reductio ad absurdem (those legalistic chappies love their Latin), who has jurisdiction in the International Law Court?
 * This spat has no place at RfD. Again, Strongly refuse jurisdiction. As judge and jury I have no interest in this case. I suggest the protagonists read the excellent Uncommon Law by a true defender of freedom (strangely, not American) and then reconsider their positions. Si Trew (talk) 22:32, 5 February 2015 (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.

The Principle Of Moments



 * 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 Principle of Moments. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The Principle Of Moments → Torque (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Principle_Of_Moments&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The redirect is an unnecessary mis-capitalization of the name, and confusingly redirects users trying to reach the album The Principle of Moments (un-capitalized). Redirect should be deleted and a hatnote added to the article about the album. Brianhe (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to The Principle of Moments as (restore this revision). Hatnote the target. Ivanvector (talk) 15:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget to The Principle of Moments and Hatnote per Ivanvector. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget per above. I have added a preliminary hatnote. Feel free to review and change.  野狼院ひさし  u/t/c 15:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retarget as and confusing (WP:RFD, but not suggesting deletion, we have no section on "when should we retarget"). Si Trew (User torque:SimonTrew) 22:21, 5 February 2015 (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.