Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 12

December 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 12, 2017.

Bret Weinstein
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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  for now, noting there is relevant detail on the subject at the article. There used to be an article on the subject, before it was redirected there as the result of Articles for deletion/Bret Weinstein. Talk:Bret Weinstein already has a bit of discussion about recreating the article, and the history currently there may be a good place to start from. However, note that a new article would have to overcome the concerns laid out at the AfD. On the other hand, if BDD's concerns end up holding true, this can always be revisited in the future once the event becomes less recent. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 16:19, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Bret Weinstein → The Evergreen State College (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bret_Weinstein&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Delete: Inappropriate redir (technically it's going to a #Weinstein anchor in that section). The section is not about Weinstein, who is connected to the protests, and is likely notable (due to coverage in relation to that, but probably not otherwise). This should be redlinked and an article created at some point, or be left unlinked. Evergreen State College isn't directly bound up with the subject of Bret Weinstein, and isn't going to have a #Bret Weinstein section, so this redir is just a "not how we do things" case. E.g., we do not redirect the names of 1000s of Google employees to Google, and so on. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  15:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose The subject's main claim to notability is his direct involvement in the topic at the section link. That is qualitatively different than redirecting "just because" he is employed by the university. A redirect does not prevent editors from expanding it an article; until that happens, it is an appropriate redirect. James (talk/contribs) 18:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Regarding SMcCandlish's use of false equivalency, ie "we do not redirect the names of 1000s of Google employees to Google". No one has suggested we link "1000s of TESC employees to § 2017 protests". Bret Weinstein was not just one-of-many in regards to the events covered in The Evergreen State College § 2017 protests, he was central to the development of events and much of his presence in search results stems from such. If anything, himself and the events surrounding him at Evergreen have been under emphasized in the section. Significant events developed in direct response to his choices.
 * Oppose/Keep: Weinstein is named in and central to the targeted material. Furthermore, interest in developing the redirect into a freestanding page has already been expressed at Talk:Bret Weinstein. ––A Fellow Editor– 19:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Delete: Redirect can be plausibly expanded into an article. The section is not about Bret Weinstein as a notable figure. It makes no mention of his work in the field of biology (namely the evolution of senescence) and does not connect him to his mentors Robert Trivers or Richard D. Alexander who are notable evolutionary biologists. It doesn't address a prior 1987 controversy at the University of Pennsylvania and also makes no mention that his brother is Eric Weinstein. This should be redlinked and an article should be created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allensa77 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As things stand now, the redirect is fine and helpful. But how long will that be the case? How long will information on a 2017 ruckus stay on the main article for the college? Cf. WP:LASTING, WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. --BDD (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I just looked him up on Google and got the redirect. I therefore found this redirect useful. It is likely many others alook have or will.1


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Accept Button
 Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was:
 * 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) 22:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Accept Button → Enter key (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Accept_Button&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ] ]
 * AcceptButton → Enter key (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=AcceptButton&action=history history] · stats)     [ Closure:  ]

Does not exactly refer to the enter key, however this is the name of an element in C#, could also refer to any button labeled "Accept" anywhere. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem important, and I can't remember why I created it! :-) --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


 * delete per nom. Creator is not vouching for keeping it as well -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Overly vague.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - This looks like it will be a unanimous decision. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.