Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 14

July 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 14, 2009

Death of Naser Amirnejad

The result of the discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about this person is mentioned in the target article, so someone using the redirect (is that even plausible?) would find a dead end. Tavix |  Talk  20:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The history is this is as follows:
(1) Someone wrote an article on the death of Naser Amirnejad. However there were no reliable sources giving any substantial details about what happened. It was not obvious from the article that his death was notable. (Maybe it was notable, but the article was never written in a way that made that clear.)
(2) The article was proposed for deletion
(3) It was decided to redirect to 2009 Iranian university dormitory raids because some people thought that as he was a student, his death must have happened then. But there is no evidence he was killed in that incident. Indeed the only evidence available was that he was not killed in that incident. (See talk page.) So it was decided to redirect to 2009 Iranian election protests.
--Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Naser Amirnejad. If it's really an issue at all then I say go ahead and get rid of it, but I don't think that the redirect deletion policy allows for that. The redirect isn't doing any actual harm (that I can see).
    — Ω (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion in its AfD was about its notability and the result was to merge it to the appropriate article. If it isn't merged yet, it should be. The history of the page shouldn't be deleted. I added a sentence in 2009 Iranian election protests about his death. Alefbe (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ron Marquette

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 06:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Marquette starred in more works than just Red Shoe Diaries. I was working on Public Access (a film in which he appears) and found that the actor's name redirects to one of his works, which is confusing. The page should be a red link until someone writes a biographical article within Wikipedia's notability standards. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A redlink would encourage the creation of a biographical article, and a redirect to an arbitrary work he's been in is not all that helpful. ~ mazca talk 11:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pink phone

The result of the discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has not necessary, I tagged speedy and SoWhy declined it for any good reason. Notability is not inherited and over 39 million Google search hits. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 12:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - As far as I can see, a redirect at Pink phone to a phone called the Pink is plausible. The R3 speedy decline was absolutely correct - this redirect is neither recently-created, nor an implausible misnomer. It's a reasonable search term. ~ mazca talk 17:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree: a perfectly plausible search term for the "Pink" phone. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

France's next top model cycle 1

The result of the discussion was keep. Not just a capitalization difference, but also a difference in punctuation make this a plausible redirect.--Aervanath (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even these letters aren't capitalized, created into one capital letter. Even it was move into standard capitalization proper form. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. From WP:MIXEDCAPS: "Articles, including redirects, whose titles are either all initial caps or only first word capitalised are found via "Go" using a case-insensitive match." You can test that this works by varying the case for France's Next Top Model, Cycle 2, which has no such redirect. -- Thinking of England (talk) 03:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right, but the redirect omits, as might one entering the phrase, the comma, such that entering France's next top model cycle 1 will not, in the absence of the redirect, get one to the target directly. 99.13.217.112 (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this is not just a difference in capitalisation but also punctuation as there is a comma in the target that is not in the redirect. PaulJones (talk) 18:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with PaulJones. Capitalisation is not necessary for redirect. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:21, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read my comment you will see that I point out that there is more than capitilization to this redirect. PaulJones (talk) 09:32, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dennis hickey

The result of the discussion was disambiguify (is that even a word?).--Aervanath (talk) 06:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating for deletion, or failing that reroute it to Denis Hickey, which at least spells one part of the name the same. As it is, an inappropriate redirect and liable to cause confusion for anybody looking for an actual Dennis Hickey with two ns and an ey. Recent redirect, no edit history. —Paul A (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Turn into disambiguation page; while there's nobody notable with that exact spelling it's a very likely guess for someone looking for either of the two Denises you mention. There's no particular reason for it to redirect to one or the other, but someone visiting that title is probably looking for one of the two. ~ mazca talk 17:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ye-e-e-e-s

The result of the discussion was keep.--Aervanath (talk) 06:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be considered along with Yeees RfD immediately below. Attempt at phonetic transliteration of an unusual emphasis provides a poor search term. All three were created by RAN last Feburary and have no discussion or non-trivial history. Thinking of England (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keeep as the wikistalkee and creator per Dy-no-mite → J. J. Evans and No soup for you → The Soup Nazi and every other catchphrase in Wikipedia: Category:Catchphrases, all variant spellings should be used to aid the searcher. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ye-e-e-e-s. Redirects from catchphrases are reasonably helpful, and redirecting this spelling will help those searching for it spelled that way. I'm neutral on Yees; I don't see that anyone has presented a valid reason for deletion, but it's also somewhat redundant to Yeees as discussed below. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:46, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are a few reasonable variations, as with all ejaculations there are many variations with commas inserted in places, with and without exclamation points, and phonetic variations, all to make the main article easy to find. A few reasonable variations are in order. If you think I chose the wrong one for the category, you can swap it out. The article on the actor himself uses several variations, as do the articles on the various shows he was in. If you think we should standardize all the articles, choose one, and I will will make the substitutions. We can do the same for the 4 variations of Here's Johnny in Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Yeees

The result of the discussion was no consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect, could have infinite ways to spell "Yes" and they are not associated with one person Drawn Some (talk) 06:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keeeep as per article it is his classic catchphrase. Disclosure: I am the creator and the wikistalkee. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Q: How you do you determine the spelling of this attempt at a phonetic transliteration of an unusual emphasis. Here you used three 'e's, but the article uses "Yeeeesssss" with four 'e's and five 's's, in one quote, and elsewhere uses "Y-e-e-e-s", your 3 'e' spelling but with hyphens between all letters. -- Thinking of England (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that RAN created the redirects Ye-e-e-e-s (four 'e's and hyphens between all letters except the first two) and Yees (two 'e's) back in February as well. (I have nominated them above so that they may be discussed at the same time.) This gives us five different phonetic transliterations, three used exclusively for redirects and two used exclusively in the article. -- Thinking of England (talk) 09:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few phonetic variations are in order for the person remembering the catchphrase and not the actors name per every catchphrase here in Wikipedia. Its easy when it is words, harder when the catchphrase is a sound. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precedence is not policy, but I see that Dy-no-mite → J. J. Evans. (Here, again, spelling becomes a problem. The J. J. Evans article provides "Dyno-MITE" and "Dyn-o-mite", although the Jimmie Walker article provides "Dy-no-mite", so there is at least some intersection between the redirects and the article text.) -- Thinking of England (talk) 10:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pointless article in my opinion. Anyone who wants information on this specific actor will go to his page direct, where it even discusses his "Yeeeesssss" catchphrase 3/4 times. -- AdamD123 (talk) 11:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And how exactly will you find the actor when you only hear the catchphrase on television? Redirects are to aid the searcher. Did you know the name of the actor? I didn't. Would you search Wikipedia for "yes" to find him? Also it is a redirect, not an article. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the redirects is presumable to guide a user who remembers the catchphrase but not the actor's name. Perhaps this is why the three redirects are of forms that do not appear in the article itself, as those would show up in the search anyhow. Still, these redirects only provide a few of the combinations of excessive 'e's and 's's and hyphens. Unless there are only a relatively few reasonable transliterations, the redirects hardly seem worthwhile. -- Thinking of England (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects from catchphrases are reasonably helpful. I don't know that we need every variant of this particular one, but there's no reason to delete this spelling of it. See also my comments in the discussion above. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Basapress news agency

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 06:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect, a news agency to a country, like directing Associated Press to USA Drawn Some (talk) 06:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't see the problem with this redirect; while an article on that newspaper would obviously be the ideal solution in the absence of one a redirect to a related article is better than nothing. ~ mazca talk 07:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, Tavix's point is convincing - creation of this article is more likely to be encouraged by a redlink. Cheers ~ mazca talk 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Maybe one day this article could be re-created into an actual article with sufficient information about the news agency. -- AdamD123 (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because red links encourage article creation more than redirects. Tavix |  Talk  19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Tavix. I am mystified by the keep arguments. Redirects should only be used when the content of the target page is substantially similar to what the input phrase is suggesting, which is definitely not the case here. Chutznik (talk) 21:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Inappropriate and misleading. A stub article that just says "Basapress news agency is news agency in Moldova" would be much appropriate. Yilloslime TC 00:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to Telecommunications in Moldova
  • Delete - misleading; if the agency is actually notable, start a stub at least. - Biruitorul Talk 19:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All the information is there in the Telecommunications in Moldova article, if you think you can come up with enough for a stand alone article, please create one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 12:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dublin Penny Journal

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect, a newspaper to a country, like redirecting LA Times to USA Drawn Some (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, obviously Dublin is a city. Unfortunately, people looking for information about a newspaper are going to be discouraged if the they find the article and it turns out to be a redirect to another article on a city that doesn't even mention the newspaper. How inappropriate for an encyclopedia to trick people in that manner. Drawn Some (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't see the problem with this redirect; while an article on that newspaper would obviously be the ideal solution in the absence of one a redirect to a related article is better than nothing. I'd also point out that Dublin is not in fact a country.~ mazca talk 07:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, Tavix's point is convincing - creation of this article is more likely to be encouraged by a redlink. Cheers ~ mazca talk 16:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because red links encourage article creation more than redirects. Tavix |  Talk  19:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to List of newspapers in Ireland
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Baku Today

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 06:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect, this is like directing "Washington Post" to United States of America Drawn Some (talk) 05:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I don't see the problem with this redirect; while an article on that newspaper would obviously be the ideal solution in the absence of one a redirect to a related article is better than nothing. ~ mazca talk 07:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, Tavix's point is convincing - creation of this article is more likely to be encouraged by a redlink. Cheers ~ mazca talk 16:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom, or saying Herald Sun should redirect to Australia. LibStar (talk) 11:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - until and unless we have an article on the newspaper, redirecting to the city where it's printed is unhelpful and misleading. - Biruitorul Talk 14:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator, redirect is fine until article created. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since red links encourage article creation more than redirects. Tavix |  Talk  18:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the same principle of the Moldova news agency redirect. Chutznik (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Instead of creating a misleading redirect, why not instead spend 2 minutes creating a stub? Yilloslime TC 00:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, good redlinks are better than having redirects that discourage article creation. Kusma (talk) 06:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tavix. It would be a different situation if Baku Today was mentioned somewhere in the target article. Jafeluv (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable newspaper. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 00:19, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to redirect to Baku, where the publication is mentioned --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete so it can be made a good red link in Baku. Kusma (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What would the point be? All the information is already in the article on Baku in the section on media. If you think you can make a stand alone article, please do. But until then it should redirect to the existing information. -Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Meaning of the word "is" is

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 06:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect, unlikely search term Drawn Some (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sounds like a slightly far-fetched search term for someone looking for the Lewinsky scandal. Jafeluv (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As per Jafeluv. -- AdamD123 (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator, term is not looking for the scandal but the place in Wikipedia where the phrase is discussed which is the scandal. Try finding it without the redirect, especially if you dont remember the exact phrasing.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. Tavix |  Talk  19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as basically harmless, but implausible. Chutznik (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. This isn't even the actual quote.[1] Should we have redirects for all possible misquotes of "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."? Yilloslime TC 00:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The definition of "is" is

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect Drawn Some (talk) 05:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as creator and the person being wikistalked by User talk:Drawn Some as some sort of punishment he has devised, a defining moment in the scandal, and in legal history, and in semantics, with autocomplete it takes you to the proper article and proper quote. The redirect was created not to find the article on the Lewinsky scandal, but to find the exact phrase used in the hearings as quoted in the article. Autocomplete gives you the article the phrase is used in. It is no more plausible or implausible than I did not have sexual relations with that woman. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think it is much better to stick to the issue being discussed, and avoid ad hominem arguments, such as the accusation of wikistalking by Drawn Some. However, since Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has chosen to make this accusation, I think it should be mentioned that he is going round arbitrarily defending whole strings of redirects, frequently making highly debatable edits to the articles to which the redirects point in order to justify his defence of them here. I do not see it as wikistalking to check on the activities of an editor who behaves like this.
  • Delete. Unlikely search term for someone looking for the Lewinsky scandal. If you feel you're being wikistalked, I suggest you take it to AN/I. Jafeluv (talk) 10:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Never mind the last part, looks like it's already reported here. Jafeluv (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. Tavix |  Talk  19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the discussion immediately above this one, delete. Chutznik (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my argument directly above. Yilloslime TC 00:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NO one is expected to type this in looking for the Lewinsky scandal, its a quote from the deposition, and is contained in the article. The redirect is in the category of "English phrases". So people looking for it by phrase can find it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of having a misquote of the phrase "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is" in Category:English phrases. Shouldn't that category only contain the notable phases? There's nothing notable or plausible about this misquoting of the actual quote. Yilloslime TC 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If, as even the one person vigorously defending this redirect says, "NO one is expected to type this in looking for the Lewinsky scandal", then it should not be a redirect to there. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_July_14&oldid=1136083743"