Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 7

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 08:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• 個體為本模型 → Agent-based model (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete; implausible search term for an English-language encyclopedia. 4 days old, no incoming links. Initially created as Chinese-language content, [1], apparently a copy/paste from Chinese language wikipedia, zh:个体为 本模型 zh:个体为本模型. TJRC (talk) 23:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have invited Mathpianist93 to comment since he has expertise in such Chinese character redirects. Simply because it is in another language doesn't mean that it is not a foreseeable search term. We have many Chinese character redirects. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I would not call myself an 'expert', but nevertheless thanks for the appraisal. Ok, on topic. First off, in terms of action, whatever we do to THIS re-direct, we ought to do the same to the simplified variant (个体为本模型); not really fair to cut out one re-direct and spare its (pretty-much) direct equivalent. Secondly... I don't think this was a copy-paste from Chinese-language Wikipedia. There is a clear notice at the top indicating that there are (numerous) errors from English to Chinese translation. And the word 'REFERENCES' is glaring out at readers. But who knows what this user was doing? Thirdly, I think TJRC did not explain properly: the re-direct is only 'implausible' because it appears not to be a specifically Chinese concept, thus strong grounds for deletion. But don't call other more legitimate re-directs (i.e. Sinosphere place names and people) as 'implausible search terms for an English-language encyclopaedia'. ——华钢琴49 (TALK) 00:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mathpianist93. Although there are a number of Chinese language redirects, from a sampling at Category:Redirects from Chinese-language terms, those that are not single-character redirects are generally native proper nouns for the subject of the article. That's not the case here. That makes this redirect (not necessarily all Chinese redirects) implausible in an English Wikipedia.

I don't believe that there is a simplified variant 个体为本模型. If there is, I agree, it should be treated the same. 谢谢 TJRC (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a novel or very obscure synonym for the article since this is not a unique Chinese concept.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not a proper name, not a specifically Chinese concept. (Most other Chinese language redirects, such as 北京, are fine). —Кузьма^討論 14:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a foreseeable search term: not a proper name, not a specifically Chinese concept. --Cyfal (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 08:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wallander (film series) 2005 episode list → List of Mankell's Wallander films (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This redirect is out of date. The target never contained a list of the Wallander film series episodes, it contained a list of the TV series episodes, and I've now merged it. Nothing links to this redirect, and there is no list of the episodes other than what appears at Wallander (film series), so there's no use for this redirect now. Fences&Windows 23:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - apparently misleading, not a foreseeable search term, and it has not been picked up by the mirrors. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 08:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cars 2: World Grand Prix → Cars 2 (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Title article was moved to by a vandal. Georgia guy (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sedna10387 (talk · contribs), the user who moved the page, is not a vandal. He has over 2,000 edits, and he has been registered for a little over a year. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 21:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, do you think a well-established Wikipedian can vandalize sometimes?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think somebody would want to spoil themselves by vandalising on an account that's made constructive edits. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not vandalism; this has been reported to be the title of the movie, see [2]. Even if those reports are incorrect, it's a plausible search term. Robofish (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we don't need to worry about which will be the final title; it can be seen here, that this is a foreseeable search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It dates to August 2009. Georgia guy (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not vandalism, this is actually an alternative title to the film from what I can tell. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:GalarragaPerfectShame.gif → File:Galarraga-Donald play 2010-06-02.gif (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Because I cannot speedy delete this redirect (which I just had to move to a title of a less offensive name), due to the overly-bureaucratic wiki-redtape, I am bringing this to RFD. "Perfect Shame"? Are you kidding me? How is this not blatantly offensive? How does this not blatantly violate the biographies of living persons policy? –MuZemike 05:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Blatant BLP violation.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it is not a G10 as it would be if it had been called JoycePerfectShame, for example. However, it does raise BLP issues so deletion is obviously correct. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unnecessary, although I don't really see the BLP violation in saying it's a shame he did not get a perfect game, which is, I think, what the title was getting at. Cf., e.g., Gary Peterson, "No easy way to fix a perfect shame", San Jose Mercury News.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - ah; I think it depends on the interpretation of the use of the term 'shame'. Now that you point it out, it could be innocuous in saying that it was a shame that the perfect game was spoilt. However, I, and perhaps the nominator, had taken it to imply that the official's misjudgement was shameful. Even if this latter view is wrong, the ambiguity underscores the need for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete possibly confusing redirect (define shame) and probably unnecessary as well. I think specific images are less searched compared to the articles that contains those images. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:54, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see a BLP issue here necessarily. The "shame" could simply mean that Galarraga didn't get the perfecto as opposed to any commentary on Joyce. That said, it is a POV title. Resolute 02:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 08:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Breast ball → Stress ball (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. There is no mention of "breast balls", whatever they are, in the Stress ball article. Is this vandalism? Stonemason89 (talk) 01:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - most definitely not vandalism; it was created by an editor who is still active and whom I have invited to comment. Breast balls are balls, filled with water or a jelly, that look like, ermm ... breasts, and are used for stress relief. A picture of one is here. This entirely properly targeted and the stats show that it is a foreseeable search term. The better way forward is to add something to the page rather than to delete the redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bridgeplayer - a bit silly perhaps, but a genuine object and plausible search term. Robofish (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 08:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Jasminum multiforum → Jasminum multiflorum (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This was obviously a spelling error by the article's creator (see the spelling in the "external link" given in the article). I've moved the article thus this is an redirect from the old typo. Cyfal (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - foreseeable plausible typo (otherwise it would be speediable as an R3); harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not much more foreseeable than accidentally leaving out any other letter.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - as with all typos, very many alternatives can be created. The difference with this one is that a page was created at this name suggesting at least some plausibility. Having said that, the argument that it is not foreseeable is not a ground for deletion of long-standing redirects; WP:RFD#DELETE refers. Our practice is to leave such typo redirects be unless there is a good reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Comment Actually, I have no idea of Jasmine, I just found that article by watching the new-articles page. Then the name "multiforum" appeared so unreasonable to me that I checked whether it was true. So, even if the creation of this name suggests some plausibility of that typo, then again the fact that I found that spelling error suggests some inplausibility. And it not a long-standing redirect, the article was created 4 days before. I can't argue agains the argument "harmless" for not deleting it, nevertheless I think it's nicer if we delete this accidentally typo. --Cyfal (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - hmm, I stand corrected - my only (and very weak) excuse is that I've had a stressful day. If you consider it implausible then perhaps try an R3 and see if an admin will delete it, in which case that will save time here? Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know R3 might be more appropriate, but I wanted to wait if I got some response from the article's creator. I wish you a less stressful day tomorrow. To start with reducing your stress, keep in mind that you are not "corrected" because my "it's nicer" is not a very strong argument ;-) --Cyfal (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is an artifact of a page move, not a redirect made for convenience. It evidences a single spelling error made by a single editor, there's no reason to believe it to be a common plausible typo. TJRC (talk) 18:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]