Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 3

March 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 3, 2012

Sabre slayer

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non neutral redirect solely created for POV... WP:REDIRECT#DELETE (point 8) applies as well. The aircraft is given this nick name only by the Indian pilots and as such is only used by them. The aircraft is not known by this name other than only a mention of that attributed to the Indian pilots. Also note that Pakistani pilots who captured and analyzed this aircraft are of the opposite view. lTopGunl (talk) 22:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: sorry, but having redirects from the POV names is actually a good practice, and I see no indication that this name is novel or obscure, and specifically it is not the name in the unrelated language. If this aircraft is known under this name, someone can come across the name and look it up in Wikipedia, so the redirect seems to be useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:02, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can not come across the term without an attribution to the Indian pilots calling "Folland Gnat" as a Sabre slayer. So anyone will look for the aircraft name. Reliable sources on Pakistani view state the opposite of this view [1]. If some one created a redirect "Not a Sabre slayer" on the basis of this source, the redirect would be equally POV. Should be deleted and only mentioned in the article. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If Pakistani pilots consistently kept referring to the plane as "Not a Sabre Slayer, such that there were multiple reliable sources showing usage of this name, then we could have a redirect from that title. This is not the case however.--Pontificalibus (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Numerous sources (e.g. 1, 2, 3) report that the plane has been referred to by this name. Why that is the case or whether this name is an appropriate one is none of our business when deciding on a redirect. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2012 (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.

File:Año nuevo en el Club Nautico (San Pedro, Buenos Aires).jpg

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-titled image - No internal incoming links Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: while harmless on its own, this redirect becomes harmful if used, as the images are ordinarily less frequently patrolled and this redirect will just clutter the File: namespace with no benefits for editors. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - The image was at the previous name for four years, thus opening a very real possibility of external sites linking to it. If it is deleted, the new file name should be included in the deletion summary. I am neutral because I agree that it can be a bit annoying if people start linking to the old name of the image, and if it ever is deleted that can cause a bit of trouble. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:13, 11 March 2012 (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.

Autopatrol

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, now that Pontificalibus' reworking of the target article has made this a more plausible search term. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on Talk:Grader and was told that this redirect is probably due to a grader vehicle with "Auto Patrol" in its name, but the article does not mention this vehicle or the word 'autopatrol' at all. I propose retargeting to WP:Autopatrolled, which is what I was looking for, and is the first Google result for the word autopatrol. ~ Kimelea (talk) 06:31, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Auto Patrol" (with space and both capitalized) was a brand of Caterpillar grader in the 1930s[2]. Redirecting a semi-notable brand to the article about the parent company is a commonly accepted practice. In this case, however, I agree that the redirect is potentially confusing. A disambiguation page might be best for our readers. Especially if there are other common uses of that phrase? Rossami (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: if the name was at least correct (eg. "Caterpillar Auto Patrol" or "Auto Patrol"), it could be kept as a search term. Still it is misspelled and no good target exists in main namespace. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not acceptable to have it redirect to WP namespace, as NPOV does? It seems to me that WP:Autopatrolled is by far the most likely intended target for the search term 'autopatrol'. I'm not sure we could justify more than one entry in a disambig page. Google suggests there is a speed camera called the AUTOPATROL PR-100 [2], and the term "auto patrol" with space is sometimes used on forums to describe a feature of security cameras [3][4], but none of these other meanings (including the Caterpillar grader) are mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia mainspace. ~ Kimelea (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Helping encyclopaedia readers find their articles should always take priority over helping editors find their policy documents. Anyone looking for WP:AUTOPATROLLED will likely be a Wikipedia editor and thus should know how to search WP namespace only (or else should be incentivised to find out how to do that). A non-editor certainly won't be looking for WP:AUTOPATROLLED, so the redirect should go to an appropriate mainspace article if there is one. --Pontificalibus (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Do you think there is one? ~ Kimelea (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There appear to be two main uses. A type of grader (sometimes as two words Auto Patrol) (e.g. refs 1, 2, 3) and a brand name of a traffic speed camera system (e.g. 1, 2, 3). I wouldn't say either use appears particularly more common or notable than the other, and neither currently has a mention in Wikipedia. Therefore I suggest deleting the redirect as things stand, or alternatively creating a dab page after first inserting details into two relevant articles. There may even be enough material to create two new articles.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have reworked the target article Grader to include mention of Auto Patrol. This redirect is a plausible misspelling as I found uses via a Google Books search. If someone wants to mention AutoPatrol speed cameras on Wikipedia, we can change to a dab page.--Pontificalibus (talk) 09:41, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing that. I don't feel confident enough to research speed cameras to WP standards myself, though. ~ Kimelea (talk) 07:47, 10 March 2012 (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.

Verizon Plus

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:25, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verizon Plus redirecting to Verizon Communications is pretty irelevant. The VZ article has no information about Verizon Plus whatsoever, making this redirect questionable. I don't think copying the info from the revision history would be a good idea, because of the bad quality of the article prior to the article's merger with Verizon Communications. No article even links to Verizon Plus, only talk pages. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 00:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. The Verizon Plus article indicates that it is the storefront for Verizon Communications. If this is correct, then the redirect would remain valid, despite nothing appearing in the Verizon Communications article. (May be regional?) --Haruth (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty much just the name used by some storefronts; with no independent notability I merged it, but there wasn't anything really worth keeping. As an search term, it's not needed. oknazevad (talk) 02:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it helps to document the merger to the target page. Redirecting a brand to the more notable parent entity is acceptable practice. Remember that redirects do more than merely support the search engine. Rossami (talk) 16:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do understand that, but not only am I'm 14, but it seems that the redirect doesn't gather as much attention. Maybe a through research on Verizon Plus for a new section on the store could benefit the redirect. Besides, the link is rarely used anyway. Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 19:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Strictly speaking, this redirect should be deleted, as target contains no information on the name. Still, the topic isn't notable enough for the separate article or section in the target, but it could serve a purpose of mnemonic alias for operator's name for some, and as such can be useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the 22 people who used that redirect last month /most likely/ found either what they were looking for, or closer to it than a redlink. Since the redirect doesn't have enough notable information to make a full article or even a section, we should direct people to where they will most likely want to be. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:10, 11 March 2012 (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.

Fox's AD

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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having searched Google and looked at the actual website, there is no evidence that anyone refers to Animation Domination as "Fox's AD". The editor already has a history of creating redirects based on made-up acronyms, e.g., DCHK. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unlikely and vague initialism, and block is always referred to by its full name in industry media. Nate • (chatter) 00:55, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: it is harmless, nobody claimed the name before and we don't know the reasons of creation. We need at least a month with clean stats to make an informed decision. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please read the editor's history; this is a very unlikely redirect and the user has issues with creating them. Nate • (chatter) 19:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMO the editor's history should have nothing to do with this... See this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, only because this redirect has not been used at all last month. This really shows that it is an implausible redirect, and should be removed as such. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:15, 11 March 2012 (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/2012_March_3&oldid=1138578408"