Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 9

April 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 9, 2013

Margaret Thatcher (1983-87)

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Created in 2009 as a result of a page move from this useless title to Life peerages created by Margaret Thatcher (1983-87) which has since itself become a redirect. No possible use. PamD 13:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete obviously wrong destination now, she doesn't need an nonobvious set of dates to distinguish her from some other person of the same name. Mangoe (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, might also be confusing.--Lenticel (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2013 (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.

Traffic confirmation

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 with no prejudice toward creating an article or dab. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A failed attempt at an article. The redirect makes almost no sense (reason for deletion 5) and the target has no additional information. If someone thinks that the redirect can be expanded into an article, then it should be redlinked in the target (reason for deletion 10). There is no substantial history or content, and nothing on Wikipedia links to the redirect. Internet searches on the topic leading to this redirect would be a waste of time. 88.75.163.89 (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete TCP confirms packet passing and is not TOR. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I re-purposed the title to a redirect after finding it during page curation, but it was the best I could come up with. I don't see a problem with this being deleted if the redirect is not appropriate. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the content prior to redirection, it seems that the article was about what is described as "exit node sniffing" at Onion routing#Weaknesses (last bullet point). From google searches it seems also widely known as "End-to-end correlation" (a redlink with a link only from Tor (anonymity network)) and looks to my inexpert eye like it has the potential to become an article. Given the anon's comment above, I'm wondering if this should be a disambiguation page if there are various meanings? I'll drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thryduulf, if we can make an article out of it, shouldn't it be redlinked rather than redirected? That would allow people to begin work on it. Someone attempted to make an article but nobody else in the community participated and it was later abandoned. If someone wants to try again, they should. 88.75.127.207 (talk) 11:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know enough about the topic to be certain, but I get the impression that we want an article about the tor-related concept (that was attempted here) at "End-to-end correlation" because the term "traffic confirmation" is ambiguous between that and something different that TCP does. If so, I'm suggesting that this title be a dab page between the two. This really needs input from someone who understands the concepts involved, hence my request to the computing wikiproject. Thryduulf (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • "We" only want that if some person actually wants that. It looks like that one person gave up a long time ago. You're right that in any case the name needs to change. I say just get rid of it and if the community wants to make an article about these topics, they are more than welcome to do that. As it is now, the redirect of "traffic confirmation" doesn't make sense and there was never any content in that article, and "end-to-end correlation" has never existed. 94.222.74.234 (talk) 14:55, 15 April 2013 (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.

Logic Education

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 Outline of logic ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page had a merge tag, so I redirected it to the target, since the page was so short there was nothing to merge. Then it occurred to me that there might be a better target. Something about philosophy or mathematics, perhaps? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Outline of logic. There are various types of Logic studies located there which might the closest thing that we have for education. --Lenticel (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2013 (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.

GameTribe

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because (1) Subject is not named or discussed on target page, (2) It is not clear what the subject means, and (3) There is no history on the redirect page to explain why it is there. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 03:53, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It looks like there is a defunct MMORPG website that had that name, with some mentions of it hosting Dekaron, but I see no link to the target and no evidence that any use of the term is notable. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete according to this site it's supposed to be a gaming portal and sister company to 505 Games. The GameTribe site is currently dead so I guess this is just an unrelated failed venture. --Lenticel (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2013 (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.

Pre-implantation labeling controversy

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, unopposed good-faith nomination ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because (1) Subject is not named or discussed on target page, (2) It is not clear what the subject means, (3) There is no history on the redirect page to explain why it is there, and (4) There are no incoming links to explain what the subject means. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 9 April 2013 (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.

A big box of butts

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect. FallingGravity (talk) 01:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete Given the many hand puppets used, this redirect is incorrect. Mangoe (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete confusing redirect.---Lenticel (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very implausible target for such a redirect too. Charon123able (talk) 15:17, 12 April 2013 (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/2013_April_9&oldid=1083556061"