Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 3

October 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 3, 2011

Footloose (2008 film)

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. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:26, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Extremely implausible redirect, as no version of the film was released that year. It currently points to the section at the article on the original 1984 film that discusses the 2011 remake, which has been in the works for years, and may have once been scheduled for 2008. But we dont keep redirects for slipped release dates. It's apparently an old mistake. oknazevad (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there was no 2008 film and this redirect is now misleading. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 02:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, it is a misleading redirect. Zickel (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This redirect can only end in confused and crying readers. We can live without it. —mako๛ 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, misleading redirect. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Raffaele Sollecito

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. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this to be a WP:BLP violation given the subject's name redirects to a murder they have been acquitted of. Furthermore, I am unconvinced they are sufficiently verifiably notable to have a dedicated article at all (including a redirect). See also Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Amanda_Knox. -- samj inout 22:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, primarily on the grounds that, after all, the main purpose of a redirect is to simplify navigation for the reader. There does seem to be a precedent on Wikipedia to retain redirects to articles even if the title of that redirect is the name of an acquitted party - cf. Casey Anthony (pointed out here). I agree with the nominator in so far as a full article is unwarranted; nevertheless, as "Raffaele Sollecito" seems to be a reasonably popular search term (1,100 hits in the last month, according to this), I do not believe that this redirect should be deleted. SuperMarioMan 15:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. It is a shame to redirect his name to a murder he was cleared of, and I think the best thing to do would be to spin out or rename the Murder of Meredith Kercher article so it focused on the trial itself. Redirecting his name to that kind of article would be fine in my mind. However, at the present time lots of people are using this redirect and we might as well help them find the relevant information. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine target to #Raffaele Sollecito - I appreciate the nominator's concerns and we always need to be very careful over BLP issues. Redirects, though, differ somewhat from articles, in that they are search aids that are essentially value free; it is the task of the target article to balance-out and allay BLP concerns. The acid test is whether there is something helpful at the target and whether a better target presents itself. In this case, because we clearly have the information that many readers are seeking, there seems no benefit in making it harder for them to find it. If a 'Raffaele Sollecito' article is written (which looks unlikely at this moment) that would solve the problem. If not, then the target article needs some careful rewriting to safeguard BLP issues. Meanwhile, my suggestion is to retarget to his section and to bolster that section with some positive bio material and to make his aquittal more prominent. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just going to be WP:BOLD and go ahead and do that right now. -- samj inout 16:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful search aid. Zickel (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep is a useful search aid. If anything it is much better to have a redirect since a large number of the websites about the individual are things which villify him. If BLP is about doing no harm then having an easily locatable bit on Wikipedia is actually helpful. (I don't think that on the whole what Wikipedia does in this context will matter much but this is potentially a useful way of thinking about the issue if we are concerned about BLP issues). JoshuaZ (talk) 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep acquitted or not acquitted, a person formally accused of a crime is known in relation to the crime. In most cases after an acquittal BLP would apply, but not when it has received such world-wide publicity that no possible harm could be done. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they're "known in relation to the crime" and have "received such world-wide publicity" then surely a dedicated article would be justified? -- samj inout 16:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Electro house

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 to keep, see explaination below. NAC Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was created because an AfD deleted it, but it should not be a redirect since what it points to makes only a passing reference to the target … please see User talk:The Bushranger#Problem caused by redlink for more details. Happy Editing! — 70.21.5.28 (talk · contribs) 02:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - even discounting the spike in hits last month because of the AFD, the former article got around 25,000 hits per month showing a demand for information on the topic. Now, I appreciate that at present, there is only a mention at the target. Looking here, there are many news hits that could be mined. The better way forward is to expand somewhat the information at the target rather than delete this redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:19, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The redirect apparently points to

    "In the mid-2000s, fusion genres such as electro house, fidget house and tech house emerged."

    That's not particularly useful. :-) — 70.21.5.28 (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's not great, that's true! However, that is why I think that the information at the target should be expanded because so many people are seeking information about this topic. Since the topic has been deemed to be non-notable there is no benefit in deletion per WP:RED because that would encourage recreation which is what we don't want. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know "so many people are seeking information about this topic?" Ridernyc (talk) 17:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
never mind not sure how I missed our previous statement. Ridernyc (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Obviously the redirect should remain. Electro house is apparently a non-notable subgenre of house music. As such, the page electro house should continue to exist solely to redirect those in search of information about that non-notable subgenre to the page of information about the notable parent genre (house music). There are many pages across Wikipedia that perform a similar function. Subgenres like intelligent techno are non-notable, and hence redirect to the Wikipedia page about their parent genre. I see no reason to delete the page. --♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 03:25, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, there should be an identical redirect for "Fidget house," which was also deleted by an AFD. — 70.21.5.28 (talk) 05:27, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And AfD doesn't determine "no redirects". There probably should be one... - The Bushranger One ping only 06:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful search aid. Zickel (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If folks want to know about it -- and especially if it's discussed or mentioned in the target article -- then there probably should be a redirect. —mako๛ 18:15, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems like a non-notable sub-genre that folks want to know about. There should probably more of a discussion of the sub-genre in the target article for that matter. —mako๛ 18:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep - but note that the original article seems to have been deleted on the basis of copyright infringement, NOT on notability grounds. Electro house is a major subgenre of house music, that was extraordinarily dominant in the mid 2000s. It remains, for example, one of the top-level genres on Beatport. Commander deathguts (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed. From the discussion above, there is consensus to keep this redirect. Electro house was deleted based on a lack of sources identifying its notability, but it is generally accepted by the participants in this discussion that it is a part of the House music genre. As such, because of a large number of people viewing the page to find out more on the subject, opposers believe that keeping the redirect is a positive thing, as it leads that traffic to where the information on Electro house is. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Desperate houswives

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 that there is consensus to keep the redirect, as it is a common misspelling that is often hit. NAC Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; misspelled title. Carl Francis (talk) 07:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - several hundred hits each month show that this long-standing redirect is a plausible typo. I have tagged it with {{R from misspelling}}. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep harmless misspelling.--Lenticel (talk) 02:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - common misspelling. Zickel (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Large amount of use indicates clear useful for navigation. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Alternatively, we can attempt to teach the world to spell through tough love and by not giving them the information they are looking for. ;) —mako๛ 18:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_3&oldid=1136083457"