Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 17

September 17

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 17, 2012

Template:WikiProject Piers

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 harmless merge left over. Tikiwont (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Confusing and not needed. There is no WikiProject Piers or a Piers task force. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:38, 17 September 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.

Charlemagne to the Mughals

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 shortly after the conversion to a redirect also the content underneath . Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article pointed to - Charlemagne - contains no material on the Mughals. The article prior to redirection was OR with one source that was not inline, not available online, and of dubious quality. Since there is no established connection between Charlemagne and the Mughals, and since the article contains no information in the very unlikely event that some searches on this title, this redirect should be deleted. regentspark (comment) 19:52, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • There have been lots of discussions on Talk:Charlemagne to the Mughals. There is no reason to replace the article with a redirect, only to list it for deletion several minutes later. WP:AFD is the place to discuss whether an article should be deleted. Replacing an article with a redirect qualifies as vandalism. The source was cited: Bierbier, M. L. (1998), "The Descendants of Theodora Comnena of Trebizond", The Genealogist 12 (1). --Ghirla-трёп- 20:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I recommend that you read WP:NOTVAND; replacing original research and unverifiable cruft with a link to a well-written article is not vandalism. On the original point, I don't really care whether or not the redirect is deleted, but the previous content should not be restored unless some editor can pull a rabbit out of a hat and provide much better sourcing in order to satisfy our verifiability and notability policies. bobrayner (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and send to AfD. While not technically against any rules, it is often seen as bad form to replace an article with a redirect and then nominate it immediately for RfD. RfD is a much lower profile page than AfD and so your course of action is seen as trying to evade scrutiny or game the system. If you do not think there should be a redirect from this title, you should not have created one. Thryduulf (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You're mistaken about one thing. The redirect was created by bobrayner and the deletion requested by me. Not in consort. --regentspark (comment) 09:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it would be bad form for an editor to replace content - regardless of quality - with a redirect and then take that redirect to RfD. That would be a sneaky trick; a sleight of hand. However, that didn't happen here. I replaced bad content with a redirect (which I think is in line with much of the sentiment on the talkpage, other than that of the article owner who has since retired); Ghirlandajo reverted bad content back into the article and said "try WP:AFD for a change"; I reverted; RegentsPark RfD'd it. I respect RegentsPark as an editor but we are not acting in concert and in their position I would probably not have RfD'd it; nonetheless, it's here at RfD now. Ghirlandajo has commented here rather than reply to our talkpage comments. I'm unsure what prompted the "try WP:AFD for a change" snark; I am simply implementing the result of the Descent from antiquity AfD - keep the core of the article but take an axe to the badly-sourced content, OR, &c. One particular line of descent from that article had been forked into Charlemagne to the Mughals. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You are quite mistaken. I created the pages Descent from antiquity and Charlemagne to the Mughals in November 2005. Nothing has ever been forked from one article to another. Anyway, their subjects do not overlap, so I fail to see what the Descent from antiquity AfD has to do with this thread. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm especially annoyed by bobrayner's efforts to oust superior editors from Wikipedia, such as User:Chris Bennett, who is a major authority on the subject.[1] In 2006 and 2007 I've seen our best, most knowledgeable editors driven off in droves, after which the project has entered a period of irrevocable decline. It's sad to see the last traces of unique material destroyed in a very off-hand way. The damage is irreparable. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely my bad on this. For some reason, I thought that the redirect had been in place for a while and that you had merely restored it (in this edit) and noticed that that was not the case only after Thrydulf's comment. Anyway, this is where we are now so best to just consider it on its merits. --regentspark (comment) 01:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway, back to the RfD. I'm neutral - either delete the redirect or keep it. I think each has pluses and minuses which roughly balance out. Not sure what would be the point of an AfD. bobrayner (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be deleted. There is no connection between Charlemagne and the Mughals. Even as a redirect, this is OR. --regentspark (comment) 21:16, 25 September 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.

Tomonaga_Sulli

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. Tikiwont (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find any association between Tomonaga Sulli and Sulli (Choi Jinri) ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 16:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no obvious connection. Siuenti (talk) 23:30, 25 September 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.

Tomonaga_Choi

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. Tikiwont (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot find any association between Tomonaga Choi and Sulli (Choi Jinri) ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 16:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no obvious connection. Siuenti (talk) 23:30, 25 September 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.

Koo_Jae-Hee

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 Goo Jae-Hee. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Koo Jae-Hee is a different person from Sulli (Choi Jinri) ♠♠ BanëJ ♠♠ (Talk) 16:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Koo Jae-Hee/Goo Jae-hee is the name of the part she plays in To the Beautiful You so re-target maybe. Siuenti (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm certain now that this should be re-targeted, as a major character to the work it's from. Siuenti (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually retarget it to Goo Jae-Hee which I've converted into a disambiguation because there's another character with this name. Siuenti (talk) 19:05, 8 October 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.

Ptree

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 pstree. Tikiwont (talk) 09:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ptree" is not a likely synonym for phylogenetic tree. The redirect necessitates this line on top of the page: "ptree redirects here. For Patricia tree, see Radix tree.", which I'd like to avoid. MichaK (talk) 14:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Google suggests that you are correct, to get results related to phylogenetic trees I had to include the word "phylogenetic" in my search term and even then it was only getting results for the name of an old computer program or internal components of a newer program. By far the most prominent use is a Solaris (operating system) utility "ptree" similar to the Linux utility pstree. As there is a lot of overlap between the functions, a retarget to pstree with slight expansion of the article there would seem best. I'll notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing as they may wish to comment on my suggestion. For the record though, a desire to remove a hatnote is not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-target, to pstree. That term is best known in the '*nix' world.
    —Sowlos (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to pstree, per Sowlos, since that appears to be the primary usage of the term. bobrayner (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to pstree then per Sowlos --Lenticel (talk) 00:21, 18 September 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.

Operation Niagara Falls

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 10#Operation Niagara Falls

Logitech X-220 Speakers

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 both. Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in target article about the topic. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, anyone searching for this term would like be disappointed to find out its pin arrangement is slightly unusual. Siuenti (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS I recommend adding Logitech x-220 to this discussion. Siuenti (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is an unhelpful target for anyone searching for information on this model of speakers, as although there is content it is in its entirity a bullet point saying that it uses a non-standard connector. People looking for information on these speakers with this general a search term will be looking for more general information, which we do not have. I would have suggested redirecting to a list of Logitech speakers/products more generally but all we have is Logitech#Products which does no more than note that the company makes speakers, which those using this search term will undoubtedly already know. Further I don't consider there to be a realistic prospect of an article at this title, as I can find no independent coverage other than shopping websites and customer reviews. This model doesn't even to be prominent within Logitech's range of speakers, so the chances of future significant coverage are slim (and see also WP:CRYSTAL). Thryduulf (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or as a minimum retarget it to Logitech since any possible future creation of relevant content would be most likely happen there. bobrayner (talk) 21:02, 17 September 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_September_17&oldid=1039429704"