Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 7

< May 6
May 8 >

May 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 7, 2011

Space Talk

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 converted to DAB by RadioFan (talk · contribs). Non-admin close. —  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Name of radio program used as a redirect to a bio from same article on radio station. This is unnecessary fluff and WP:PEACOCK at worst. Should be "quick" deleted but don't know how to do that! Single link which I rm. Student7 (talk) 21:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a local radio show and the redirect goes to the bio on the article on the host who easily meets notability guidelines. Non-notable radio programs are often redirected to the host's bio (when available) or the station otherwise. You might want to reread WP:PEACOCK and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (words to watch) as a whole. This guideline is about the word choice in an article, not redirects. Did you have a problem with words in the bio in question?--RadioFan (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. Google shows that there are two things people might be looking for on Wikipedia with this title, neither of which are notable enough for their own article afacit. The entries should "A radio program hosted by Jim Banke" and "A song by Asha Puthli". Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. The title has been converted to a DAB. --RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

removed

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 Remove. NAC. —  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no good reason or if anyone thinks of one, please enlighten me to wikilink the word removed, and if someone does, we cannot predict with any reliability that degrees of cousinship are intended. The proper behavior is therefore that it should come up as a redlink. Trovatore (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to the dab page at remove and add a link from there to cousin as that is where the degrees of cousinship are explained, or the Cousin#Cousin chart section which goes into a bit more detail but less obviously at a glance. It was originally pointed at Cousin chart before that title became a redirect to the section on the "cousin" article (I've not looked to see if was merged).
    It's not linked to from the main namespace, but it is from talk and user talk pages, where it appears to be used to mean "deleted" (deletion (disambiguation) is linked from the "remove" dab page) or in sentences where every word is linked and so in all probability the linker didn't actually mean to link to anything in particular.
    I'm not advocating deletion because this is quite a high traffic redirect (around 300/month) and having it blue discourages the creation of dicdefs (the stated reason for originally creating the redirect; Wiktionary is linked from the remove dab) and nonsense (deleted on two occasions before it was redirected).
    Once removed, twice removed and thrice-removed also redirect to the "cousin" article, but I don't see any ambiguity in those terms. Thryduulf (talk) 21:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well argued. That option sounds fine to me. --Trovatore (talk) 21:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to remove per Thryduulf above - too ambiguous for one target. Robofish (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to remove per Thryduulf. Nom seems to be okay with the option as well.--Lenticel (talk) 08:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Nurupo

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. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Listcruft mentioning this word removed from article long ago, makes no sense as it is. Closedmouth (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, confusing because not mentioned in target article.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Palestinian propaganda

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 as this is a plausible search term and there is no better target. Ruslik_Zero 15:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects a general concept to a specific POV take on that concept; there is little reason to assume that people searching for information on Palestinian propaganda (which could include Palestinian Authority posters, pro-Palestinian art, arguments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, etc.) are necessarily looking for Landes' term and opinions. The page title was previously deleted for OR and POV issues. Delete. Carwil (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the term "propaganda" means :Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. ...(from wp). a user who looks for what you describe "Palestinian Authority posters, pro-Palestinian art, arguments about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" under the term "propaganda" is not an innocent person. I agree with you that "palastinian propaganda" is a bit broader term then "palywood" but "palywood" is just another type of palastinian propaganda. I intend to write an article about this subject and the redirect is temporary. but thie redirect is the closest possible. you didn't show any true reason for deletion. --Jonathango 21:52, 30 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)

The intent of my examples was to indicate several specific types of propaganda. Perhaps I should have written "Palestinian Authority posters [that espouse a position], pro-Palestinian art, arguments [from the Palestinian side of] the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Anyhow, it's large topic with lots of potential references. On the other hand, the Pallywood thesis alleges that "Palestinian cameramen, especially when there are no Westerners around, engage in the systematic staging of action scenes," which are broadcast as news. In effect, Pallywood is referring to items which are not uncontroversially propaganda, and insisting that they are propaganda. This POV thesis is highly unlikely to be the intended result of a search for "Palestinian propaganda."--Carwil (talk) 11:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Carvil , please remove the delete note on this article. as you see there is no real reason for deletion. also as I said , it's only temporary redirect. I intend to write full article and gathering material. this redirect meant only for my notice.|Jonathango| 11:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonathanGo (talk • contribs)
  • Relisting. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously an incorrect redirect. Propoganda does not stop at Pallywood. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is worth keeping as a redirect to somewhere, although there isn't a blindingly obvious destintion. The best I can suggest is Retarget to Views on the Arab-Israeli conflict or the specific section of that article Views on the Arab-Israeli conflict#Palestinian and other Arab views. Thryduulf (talk) 09:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - not an ideal redirect, but it's a plausible search term, and this is as good a target article as any, since it discusses alleged pro-Palestinian propaganda videos. For what it's worth, I see that Israeli propaganda also exists as a redirect to Public diplomacy (Israel). That too is a plausible search term; while I know we don't normally make decisions by precedent, I'm inclined to think here we should either keep them both or delete them both. I lean towards the former. Robofish (talk) 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While "Propaganda by country" is a category, a corresponding Palestine article hasn't been created. I think that Thryduulf's target or Propaganda and psychological warfare in the Gaza War might be better destinations. Perhaps a disambiguation with all three?--Carwil (talk) 23:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I certainly wouldn't object to either that target or a dab page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gawrsh!

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. Jafeluv (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-intuitive, obscurely misspelled and punctuated search term. This is the second nom. The previous nomination was closed as Delete, but that decision was overturned at DRV for procedural reasons, and never proceeded to a decision on the merits. I am renominating for the same reasons put forward in the original nomination. This redirect is one of a number of redirects created by the same editor, of phonetically misspelled things said by a fictional character that are unlikely search targets, which have generally been deleted; see Not so harrrrd!, Not so faaaaaast! and You crazy, youuuuu!. TJRC (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC) TJRC (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It is the canonical spelling. Please try a little research in Google WP:Before and save us all time and effort. You might also note that just about every foreign term and foreign name and some US cities are "non-intuitive, [and] obscurely misspelled" despite the canonical spelling. The spellings are what they are. This was from the DRV:
    1. Oh Gawrsh, Goofy! Wired News - Sep 17, 2004 The Walt Disney World employee who was acquitted last month on claims that he fondled a 13-year-old girl while dressed as Tigger wasted no time getting back ...
    2. Gawrsh! Goofy and Elmo Are Wanted for Robbery. New York Times - Aug 15, 2000 By ELISSA GOOTMAN. In a sign that nothing in New York is free of a Disney influence these days, Goofy is on the lam, wanted for a break-in robbery in the ...
    3. Gawrsh! Goofy's Right on the Money! Disneyland to Print Pastel. Los Angeles Times - ProQuest Archiver - Apr 11, 1987 The colorful $1 and $5 bills feature Mickey Mouse and Goofy instead of George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, said Bob Roth, a spokesman for the Anaheim ...
    4. Gawrsh! Goofy's good. Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Apr 13, 1995
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
  • There's nothing "canonical" about it. As noted in the original RDF, "No one who didn't create the redirect is going to think of searching for Goofy based on his exclamation. 'Hmm, I can't think of the name of that Disney character but he says "G-A-W-R-S-H-exclamation point"'". Since you're the individual who created this and the other redirects, I don't think you're the least biased source. TJRC (talk) 20:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite the nominator's assertion that it will never be used, it's consistently getting 25-30 hits a month when it's not been under discusison (when listed on rfd or drv redirects generally get a temporary increase in traffic driven from those pages). The target is logical and not incorrect, it doesn't conflict with anything else and is not doing other harm. There is no reason therefore to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Emuarius gidju

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 per practise of redirecting the name of species to the lowest level that has an article. —Alison (Crazytales) (talk) 13:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Emuarius gidju is a species that redirects to its genus when it's not the only species in that genus. Emuarius gidju and Emuarius should be separate because they aren't the same thing. — JamesDouch • Talk 07:34, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or write an article. Redirecting the names of species to the lowest level article in its taxonomy that exists is common practice. Given how short the article on the genus is, I'd be surprised if a redlink would lead to the creation of an article any time soon. Indeed a short stub about the species on the genus' page would seem like the more useful place for the information until we have enough for anything more. Thryduulf (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Victocrat

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. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a made up word and it just redirects to a disambig page. Nothing links to it. Loonymonkey (talk) 18:50, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relisting. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is apparently a portmanteau meant to refer to how members of the Democratic Party (United States) capitalize on "victim" status for political ends. However, the word is an extremely minor and obscure neologism and is not mentioned or explained at the target.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sang Hun Lee

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, doesn't appear to have been merged. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Person is no longer listed on the target page, as of this 2009 edit. A redirect to a list which doesn't include the name being redirected from only serves to confuse readers. Closedmouth (talk) 05:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment was it merged? If it was merged, then this needs to be moved to a history subpage of the list article (like Talk:List_of_Unification_Church_members/historysubpage/Sang Hun Lee and Talk:List_of_Unification_Church_members/historysubpage/Talk:Sang Hun Lee) 64.229.100.153 (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It does? I've never heard of this practice outside copy-paste move cleanup. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:56, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears at WP:MAD 184.144.163.181 (talk) 05:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kodii

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. Jafeluv (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see what "Kodii" means, never mind what it has to with Eros. I say delete it. —Saric (Talk) 14:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I too am at a loss to explain this. Googling brings up nothing relevant that I can see (only personal names, it seems to be a variant spelling of "Cody") and the creator's contribution history doesn't reveal any clues either - in December 2005 they started the Burgonet (a type of mediaeval helmet) article in two edtis, then nothing until the creation of this redirect (pointing to Eros (mythology)) in November 2007, since when they've never edited. It gets no significant hits and isn't linked from anywhere internally. Delete unless someone can explain it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 04:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

SELFCITE and CITESELF

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 WP:CITESELF to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Citing oneself. Ruslik_Zero 15:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CITESELF and WP:SELFCITE link to two different pages. The first goes to COI advice about citing oneself, and the second is about citing self-published sources. I think the redirects should be merged to the more prominent page if possible. I don't know how to handle this one, since they're shortcuts. Any thoughts? Ocaasi c 06:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first thing to do when proposing a retargetting of a shortcut link should be to discuss it on the talk page of the current target and also make the new destination page aware of the discussion, or link them both to here. These are the people who best how the current redirect is used. In your statement you say they should both point at the the "more prominent page" - which one is that? Thryduulf (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Talk pages make sense. I thought this board was used to checking page-link or page-use metrics for prominence/popularity. I don't know which one is more, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out. Ocaasi c 20:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lady Styling

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. No objections in very nearly a month. Thryduulf (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor merged original article into Salsa (dance) and redirected, despite original article being originally a promotional article whose references were stripped as spam. Searches reveal that the phrase "lady styling" is not used (except by the dancer whose website was the subject of the promotional article) to refer to a specific style of salsa. NellieBly (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wtshymanski_failing_to_work_collaboratively (a search on "Salsa" brings you right to the section talking about this). Guy Macon (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Coat of arms of Sealand

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 no consensus. Nobody except the nominator has argued for deletion after well over a month, so kept by default. Jafeluv (talk) 13:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[One Two] of an astonishing 21 redirects to the article about this marginally notable micronation, and one of two for the same unlikely search topic. It's highly unlikely that anyone would search for the "coat of arms" for a fictitious entity, rather than the "principality" itself, and Wikipedia is filled with all sorts of nonsense links and redirects for what is essentially self-promotion. Horologium (talk) 22:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both, the redirects were created as a result of this AfD in 2007, and between them they are getting 20-30 hits a month (states.grok.se is case insensitive, so it's not possible to know the breakdown), so people are evidently looking for this. What harm is it doing, and what benefit would we gain from deletion? Note I've combined the separate nominations (with identical nomination statements) into a single one as it is exceedingly unlikely that the outcome will be different. Thryduulf (talk) 00:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:48, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_May_7&oldid=1085561894"