Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 12

May 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 12, 2012

Kristina Abernathy

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) 13:49, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was already discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_20#Kristina_Abernathy_.28meteorologist.29 and the result was delete. This article is a duplicate of the one discussed. ChadH (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the linked discussion (ideally this would have been discussed as part of that discussion!). It is worth noting that this is not a recreation - indeed this was created as an article in 2005 but had become a redirect by the time Kristina Abernathy (meteorologist) was created as another bio for the same person in 2007. This doesn't fit any of the speedy deletion criteria, but I would not object to a snow close. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize during the first discussion that there were two articles/redirects for the same person! What a mess! ChadH (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - same reasons covered in the link provided. --V2Blast (talk) 18:43, 14 May 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.

Poky

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 disambiguate. Rossami (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Poky", according to wikt:poky has a number of meanings, none of which I can find have any connection to Mákina, a genre of hardcore techno music originating in Spain. I suggest retargetting this to the disambiguation page at Pokey, as that is an alternative spelling and/or plausible typo or misspelling for several of the meanings there. See also the #Pokiest discussion lower down this page. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to The Poky Little Puppy - "Poky" is the correct spelling for the name of the titular character in the book The Poky Little Puppy. A correct spelling should be privileged over a misspelling; Pokey can be added in a hatnote on that article. Neelix (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spanish Wikipedia has separate articles about Mákina and Poky, and "Poky" was mentioned in the English Mákina article when the redirect was created - it was added in September 2007 and removed in May 2010. It's likely that the names refer to similar but not identical genres, although "Poky" is probably a neologism or otherwise not notable. Peter E. James (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate with a link to wiktionary, pokie and pokey, and Poky Little Puppy. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguation pages do not list other disambiguation pages as entries; only Poky Little Puppy is a valid entry. The other two links can appear in a hatnote on that article. Neelix (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Disambiguation pages do list other disambiguation pages as entries or (more usually) see alsos. This is normally only done when a combined disambiguation page would be too large or the intersection is only for a small subset of entries - see Fox (disambiguation) for examples of other disambiguation pages as entries and as see alsos. I don't think this is needed in this case, indeed I think one disambiguation page covering Poky, Pokey and Pokie would suffice - for example the Australian slang for slot machine seems to be used with all three spellings. Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • A merged dab page is fine by me. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A hatnote of that type would miss the wiktionary entry. My disambiguation is essentially a softredirect to wiktionary expanded with options from wikipedia. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wiktionary links are nice add-ins on disambiguation pages, but they aren't sufficiently important to justify the existence of a disambiguation page. Disambiguation pages require multiple non-disambiguation-page article entries, and there is only one valid entry for "Poky". Neelix (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is not correct. Since "pokey", "poky" and "pokie" are spelling variants, they are all three valid entries. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Spelling variants of what? None of the entries on the Pokey and Pokie disambiguation pages could be referred to as "Poky" except as a misspelling. Also, our disambiguation guidelines state that links to other disambiguation pages should only be included in a "See also" section. In referring to existing articles on Wikipedia, the term "Poky" is not ambiguous. Neelix (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • According to Wikt:poky, the slot machine meaning that appears on both pokey and pokie disambigs can be spelled "poky" as well. The disambig page style guidelines are just that, guidelines, and they are frequently not adhered to when an alternative presentation makes the disambig more useful. Indeed the whole reason we have set index articles is that the dab page guidelines frequently do not fit the purpose of making it easy for readers to find articles. Thryduulf (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand to disambiguation page - If there are multiple valid article entries for a disambiguation page, the guidelines aren't against creating one. A disambiguation page should be created with Slot machine and The Poky Little Puppy as the two main entries, a link to the Wiktionary article, and a "See also" section linking to the other disambiguation pages. Neelix (talk) 15:27, 21 May 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.

John Bremerton

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. Ruslik_Zero 11:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted, it only exists because an article was created with the wrong title, apparently unrelated to the topic. Peter E. James (talk) 16:05, 12 May 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.

Girls who doesn't age

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 girls who doesn't age, keep girl who doesn't age. Jafeluv (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty much useless redirects, I can't imagine anyone searching for "girl who doesn't age". No incoming links to either redirect. The first one is even misspelled. JIP | Talk 10:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Girl who doesn't age. This is a plausible search term for someone who has seen/heard about Brooke Greenberg but who can't remember her name (and it seems that there have been a couple of documentaries about her), and the stats show it is used. Normally I'd recommend retargetting to the article about the syndrome/condition/disease/whatever, but from reading the article it seems that her condition is unique and known only as "Syndrome X" - a disambiguation page that links back to this target. With no formal name and no other known sufferers it isn't likely that a separate article will be created any time soon. Delete the misspelling Girls who doesn't age though as that isn't a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete misspelling, keep correct spelling. Kaldari (talk) 20:26, 19 May 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.

Dhindo water

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. Ruslik_Zero 11:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dhindo water → Tea (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

No incoming links, DuckDuckGo finds nothing. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Being an orphan is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Remember that in a perfect world, they would all be orphans.
    That said, I can find no reference that connects dhindo (a Nepalese boiled grain similar to polenta) to the concept of "tea". Delete unless someone can present a plausible connection between these two concepts. Rossami (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response Why would this be true: in a perfect world, they would all be orphans? I only mention incoming links to say that there is nothing else on en.wp that references it--I don't know what this is and it has no relationship to the rest of the content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The adage that "In a perfect world, all redirects would be orphans" is a way of saying that if this were a traditional encyclopedia with static content and some sort of "complete date", all our pages would be perfectly edited and all links would directly point to the pages where they belong, either through piping or renaming in the article using the link. Nevertheless, redirects can be very valuable, serving to preserve edit history, aid in searching, resolve notability issues, etc. In that perfectly-edited Wikipedia, no redirect would have any active inbound links. There are good reasons why redirects will never all be orphaned in the real Wikipedia (and several good reasons why we should not even try) but it is a general statement that being "unused", that is, having no inbound links, is not a sufficient reason to delete a redirect. If this title really did have a relationship with tea (say, an obscure synonym or slang alias), we would keep the redirect even if nothing linked to it. Rossami (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response Ah, that's clearer--hence, I added a search as well. The simple lack of incoming links is (as you pointed out) insufficient, but furthermore, I can't find anyone actually using this term. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • And Rossami agrees with you. You provided two arguments for deletion (1. nothing links to it. 2. A search shows no evidence of use), Rossami's comment was that 1 is not a valid reason to delete but, as he also cannot find any use, reason 2 is valid and applicable. Thryduulf (talk) 19:41, 16 May 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.

Banking in Brazil

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. Commenters are unanimous in calling for deletion, as this includes the redirect's creator I'm closing this early per WP:SNOW and/or WP:CSD#G7. Note that as I took part this discussion, I am happy for anyone to undo this closure if they feel it inappropriate (just drop a note on my talk page if you do, you don't need to wait for a response). Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect constitutes self-promotion of Banco do Brasil also might cause confusion. Brazil have more Banks, for example: Bradesco, Itaú, Banco_Safra, Banco do Brasil. 200.144.24.91 (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural note: I came across the above attempt by an IP to nominate this redirect for discussion [1], due to a misunderstanding of proper listing procedure, the attempt was reverted and it was never successfully listed. As it appears to be a good faith RfD request, I am listing it on their behalf. Monty845 03:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:REDLINK. This should be an article on the banking system in Brazil (c.f. Banking in Argentina and others) that we don't currently have. A redlink will encourage its creation. Thryduulf (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or redir to Category:Banking in Brazil. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being self-promotion (and because if it does exist, it should be in the form Thryduulf mentioned). --V2Blast (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as self-promotion and to encourage a potential article through the red link.---Lenticel (talk) 00:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Thryduulf, sorry I hadn't realised I had erred when I first created the redirect, and I note that delete seems like consensus, how long does this nom have to stay open before that is actioned ? EdwardLane (talk) 09:53, 15 May 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.

Cal Poly Mustangs

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. Ruslik_Zero 12:01, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant as Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Mustangs already exists as a redirect. It's a redirect to a redirect!-- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  03:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Double-redirects get fixed by updating them, not by deleting. "Redundant" is not a reason to delete a redirect, especially one as plausible as the team's common name. Rossami (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either way, "Cal Poly Mustangs," not "Cal Poly San Luis Obispo Mustangs" is the nationally accepted name of the school's athletic teams, per ESPN and Yahoo!. The differentiation is only necessary when referring to Cal Poly Pomona. Kithira (talk) 02:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Kithira. Every single article title and category name for Cal Poly SLO uses "Cal Poly Mustangs", not "Cal Poly San Luis Obispo". Differentiation is not needed due to the fact that category trees and articles' prose clearly expounds upon the school and teams in question. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:44, 14 May 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.

Pokiest

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 to delete. There is, however, a reasonable consensus that the page should not remain as-is. I am going to turn the page into a soft-redirect to Wiktionary but that is an ordinary-editor decision, not a formal part of the close here. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meaningless redirect, suggest a SNOW delete. Too old for Speedy R3. . Moved here from AfD, for which it was inappropriately nominated-- see discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Pokiest DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This is in no way a meaningless redirect. "Pokiest" is a word which, depending on the context, can mean either "fastest" or "slowest," and so Speed is the most appropriate target for the redirect. "Pokiest" is a valid search term; at the very least, it should be kept as a soft redirect to Wiktionary, but an internal redirect is preferable because we have an article on the relevant subject. Neelix (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • A redirect to the definition page at Wiktionary would be more useful. Although there is an article on a relevant subject for one of the definitions (and possibly another that isn't mentioned there), it isn't a synonym for the title and that page doesn't (and probably shouldn't) contain any information about the word "pokiest". Peter E. James (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Neelix, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so it doesn't matter if the definition for the word doesn't appear at speed. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:RFD#DELETE per 1,2, and 8. Pokiest is likely most useful as a search term. If users arrive at speed and never see the word 'pokiest' then they will wonder why the hell they ended up at speed. Even worse because pokiest isn't even an obcure synonym for speed, its a synonym to fastest or slowest and niether fastest nor slowest redirect to speed. Worst redirect ever! --Joshuaism (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. I've only heard the word used to mean "smallest, most cramped" (etymology 3 at wikt:poky), however neither that nor the "slowest" meaning can support an article. The stats show its a page that it used and so taking our readers to Wiktionary is the best course of action. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No real home for it on WP. I think I am cool with a soft redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:57, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nomination (though I could, with difficulty, be convinced to accept a redirect to wiktionary). --V2Blast (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any reason why deletion would be preferable to soft redirection to Wiktionary. Why do you think that it is? Neelix (talk) 15:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite popular belief, we don't actually need to handle every possible word and phrase in the English language. If someone expects there to be an encyclopedia article on "pokiest" they are clearly deranged :) Kaldari (talk) 20:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, why would deletion be preferable to soft redirection to Wiktionary? Neelix (talk) 15:31, 21 May 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_May_12&oldid=1138578442"