Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 2

May 2
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 2, 2015.

Natasha Barackovna



 * 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 both. Just Chilling (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Natasha Barackovna → Family of Barack Obama (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Barackovna&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]
 * Natasha Barackovna Obama → Family of Barack Obama (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Natasha_Barackovna_Obama&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Apparently this would be Sasha Obama's name if one were to use the Eastern Slavic naming custom. She doesn't actually go by this name and doesn't have any connection with any Eastern Slavic groups, so this redirect isn't helpful. I'm also adding Natasha Barackovna Obama for the same reason. I think the spirit of WP:RFOREIGN applies here. Tavix | Talk 18:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete English speaking U.S. born U.S. citizen with a background in English, and additional background in Kenya and Indonesia, but not Slavic regions. So unrelated to the target. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I could be persuaded otherwise if it were widely hit, even if WP:NOTENGLISH, but it isn't: respectively 9 and 10 hits in the last 90 days (excluding the tiny peak to 4/day with this discussion being opened) which is well below noise level. Si Trew (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Aside (not quite off topic). I put in WP:FOREIGN instead of WP:ENGLISH and was slightly surprised that it is red, so was going to create a redirect. But then remembered, that is exactly how these things get created, someone saying "oh I would search that way so it must be useful not clutter", so refrained. (Pats self on back.) It might be useful but I think I would discuss it first rather than be BOLD on it cos we don't have WP:NOTFOREIGN either, whatever that would mean. (WP:NOTENGLISH  → Pages needing translation into English, AKA WP:PNT, for the sake of completeness.) Si Trew (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - if no member of the Obama family goes by this name, I call this a WP:BLP violation. Ivanvector (talk) 16:42, 4 May 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.

Split profession



 * 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 as vague. Deryck C. 20:58, 9 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Split profession → Barrister (links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Split_profession&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

I've already created Split legal profession and linked it to Barrister. But "Split profession" seems too vague. Something tells me that law is not the only career path with a split profession. Mr. Guye (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * And you would be right: For example, the medical profession with general practitioners, surgeons, consultants and so on. and countless others; the Institution of Engineering and Technology, of which I am a Member, makes a clear distinction between engineers and technicians (and scientists) giving respect to each. Casting around for plausible retargets, to my surprise we do not have Career path, nor job demarcation: we do have Demarcation dispute which describes it, but this isn't really about disputes. Any better suggestions? Si Trew (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, Career path was actually deleted in 2007, so perhaps that has stopped people making a coherent article with it, what with the sort of dire warnings at the top of the deleted page. (WP:G1 patent nonsense.) Was it that bad? Not so much a career as a headlong plummet then? I might take this to RfC as I am not competent to do it. Si Trew (talk) 14:15, 4 May 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.