Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 10

October 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 10, 2013.

Linda Shapiro

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 Linda Shapiro wikified into a "stub-class" BLP article by Siuenti. Given the fact that Linda Shapiro is no longer a redirect, a discussion on whether or not to keep this as a redirect is not truly valid anymore. If there are further concerns about the Linda Shapiro article, as stated below, I would recommend taking the article to WP:AFD for possible deletion, or discuss on Talk:Linda Shapiro the possibility of turning the article into a disambiguation page, further enforcing the hatnote, or moving the article to a different title via the WP:RM process. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion since redirect is simply incorrect. There is an actual person named Linda Shapiro who is not Tera Patrick and there is no reason stated for the redirect (none that I'm aware of). Rxho (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as possible BLP violation. Siuenti (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've overwritten the redirect with a microstub about a professor. I'd still rather the whole thing was deleted. Siuenti (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On the face of it this redirect may well be valid. Linda Shapiro appears to be one of several alternative names used by Tera Patrick as indicated here. Now, to merit the redirect we would need to reliably source the connection but what constitutes reliable sources in the porn industry? However, the existence of a possibly notable other person doesn't in itself constitute a BLP breach; many people share names with other people with whom they may not wish to be associated! If the professor is notable then one way forward would be to disambiguate the links to clarify that they are different people. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TWW, if there is a different Linda Shapiro, write an article on her, until then, if she isn't covered on Wikipedia, there's no BLP breach, since Tera Patrick also used this name. In any case, there are many people named Linda Shapiro, so whatever person you're referring to is unknown, since you haven't described who your Linda Shapiro is, and we have no way of assessing if your version is notable or not either. Indeed, for most people on Wikipedia, there are other people with the same name. That does not make it a BLP violation to write an article on someone else who shares the same name as another person. -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The person I'm referring is the professor - whose existence can be confirmed by a simple internet search, and whose publications are mentioned in other articles in Wikipedia (see Content-based image retrieval). Also, similar searches return the professor person instead of the porn star. I suggest to disambiguate the links for different Linda Shapiro's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rxho (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have now added a sourced reference to the Linda Shapiro alias which justifies the redirect. Whether an article is created on the academic of the same name is a matter outwith this RFD. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I have added a hatnote to the article and I change my opinion to keep as a redirect or hatnote. Siuenti (talk) 20:13, 12 October 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.

2008–09 Supreme League season

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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure what's going on here, but the Supreme Hockey League was created in 2010, according to its article, so it logically couldn't've had a 2008–09 season. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact the article should be titled 'Major Hockey League' and not 'Supreme Hockey League' (who moved it? ughhh need to do an alt request to have it returned...) there were seasons before 2010, the league changed it's name from Major League to Major Hockey League in 2010 and started fresh. See Vysshaya Liga (ice hockey).--Львівське (говорити) 18:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - if the Supreme Hockey League was under a different name in 2008–09 then the redirect titles are wrong. In any case since there is nothing about this season at the target the redirects are misleading to the reader. Finally, WP:RFD#DELETE point 10 applies. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:54, 10 October 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.

Historic Hotel in an Historic Victorian Ozark Town

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 speedy deleted as WP:CSD#R3. Peridon (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original vague title of new article, cant see this redirect being of any use TheLongTone (talk) 09:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - promotional and not useful as a way to locate the article. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 14:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a recently created implausible misnomer and tagged as {{db-redirmisnomer}}. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:24, 10 October 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.

Cycle path debate

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 24#Cycle path debate

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_10&oldid=1138579242"