Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 June 12

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. Since the recent article is created by a sockpuppet of a banned user, the deletion request is valid. Recreation of redirect or disambiguation at this title is permitted by any editor in good standing. @Tavix and K.e.coffman: I'll leave you two to decide whether you want to restore the redirect. Deryck C. 17:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• AND CO → Fiverr  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

No reason to preserve the article history which was created by Special:Contributions/Kielster currently indef blocked as a spam-only account. A prior version of the article had been deleted via PROD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Was the prior version an article? Because redirects cannot be PRODded. wumbolo ^^^ 11:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are you asking for the edit history of the redirect to be deleted? Was there something about the original writeup that was a copyvio? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @K.e.coffman: Peeps are asking you questions here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nom's comment: Sorry it was confusing. I had PRODed the article in 2016, so it was on my watch list when it got recreated. The creator then got blocked as a spam-only account, and the article was redirected. I nominated the redirect for deletion, since the article history is correspondingly spam. There's no urgent need to delete the redirect. However, in my experience spam articles that have been targeted by likely UPE-accounts tend to get recreated, so we might as well raze this page / redirect to the ground now. @SMcCandlish: Hope this is clearer. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Wumbolo & AngusWOOF as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Refine to Fiverr#AND CO, where there is relevant information. I don't see an AfD, but if it is repeatedly recreated against consensus, protection can be added. (note: AND Corporation is unrelated and And co. redirects to company). -- Tavix ^(talk) 01:06, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth putting in a hatnote to go to AND Corporation and AND (disambiguation)#Businesses and organizations. Also consider And Co as its own disambiguation page. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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. Arguments for retarget were good, and if there and been even a passing mention that'd be how this would close, but it just couldn't garner the support. It's minor, but it's not even particularly easy to find the two names in that long list. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 11:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Florencia 13 and Mara Salvatrucha → MS-13  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

WP:XY between Florencia 13 and MS-13. -- Tavix ^(talk) 16:35, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to List of gangs in the United States#Hispanic. This is getting a lot of hits (20+ so far this year, over 100 last year) so it's almost certainly linked from somewhere, and people following links to deleted pages are rarely taken directly to search results so deletion would definitely be harmful. However, neither target discusses the other (I haven't looked to see whether they ever did), so at present it is an XY situation so the current situation is not ideal. Both groups are listed in the list of hispanic gangs so providing direct links to both our articles. Unless someone can find a prose article that discusses both groups, then it appears the list is the best we are able to do. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per Thryduulf. Both are listed in that list article, so all will be well.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:46, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose retarget, it makes no sense to have an artificial connection in the form of a redirect like this, especially since they aren't notability discussed together. None of the other gangs at List of gangs in the United States have a redirect of this form. (Seriously: not even Bloods and Crips, which are notably discussed together). Even page view usage is well in implausible territory. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:58, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It makes sense to have this because it's existed for years, people are using it and would be significantly inconvenienced if we were so irresponsible as to increase link rot. Deletion would harm the encyclopaedia - I'm once again disappointed in your callous disregard for readers. Thryduulf (talk) 02:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because something has existed is not in and of itself a reason for it to continue to exist, epecially given it has been misleading during its entire existence. Your calls of harm are greatly exaggerated—if not completely false. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:LONGTIME / WP:CONTENTAGE in and of themselves aren't a reason that a content-age-related argument "must" be fallacious; what's covered there is ones that are because they make no other argument. In this instance, Thryduulf's point is salient, though tangential: the content age of the redirs allows us to see that people actually do search for this string. More importantly, you're misunderstanding WP:XY. Direct quote: "Redirects that could equally point to multiple targets are usually deleted, as there is no way to determine which topic a reader is searching for." So, there is no requirement that they be deleted, and in this case the redirect a) will point to one target, and b) help them find what they are looking for, since both subjects are at that target. Thus, XY's rationale simply doesn't apply this time.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:25, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ignoring the red herring and moving on to my point: there is nowhere that discusses these two tangentially-related gangs together, so there shouldn't be a redirect saying there is content of the sort. The fact that there is a target that just so happens to have a bare list that includes both of these gangs (not even together, mind you) is not a strong enough target to consider retargeting there. -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:47, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • There were no red herrings in mine or SMcCandlish's points - you don't get to just dismiss valid arguments like that. We have evidence that people are using this redirect, and have been using it many times a year every year for several years. That we wouldn't create it now is irrelevant, it does exist and deletion will be actively harmful for those people who use it - in most cases they won't even get search results. The options that are that we (a) harm the project or (b) help the readers. If you are considering doing (a) in this scenario then please consider yourself lucky that you have not been on the receiving end of a WP:NOTHERE block - it really is that simple. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • You keep pointing to page view statistics as if every single person who ever found the redirect was personally helped by it. A little bit of simple logic would lead to the conclusion that is simply not true. For the redirect's entire existence, the redirect has helped exactly zero people find what they are looking for due to the simple fact that the target has no information on Florencia 13! Anybody who has ever tried using the redirect to to find information on how these two gangs are related (which is far less than 100/year—people stumble upon redirects accidentally or out of curiosity, me being one of them) has ended up confused or disappointed by the target, which has not, does not, and will not answer this search query. I am in the process of improving Wikipedia by nominating for deletion a redirect on a topic that Wikipedia does not have, preventing this very confusion or disappointment for future readers. You are getting in the way of that, and I respectfully ask you to step aside. You continue to show complete ignorance about the search engine, so here is some reading material. Please consider yourself lucky that I am even responding to your personal attack. Good day, sir. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Some people will have found at least some of what they are looking for at the curent target (i.e. information about one of the gangs), but we can do better - which is why I'm proposing to retarget the redirect to a location that will be better rather than keeping it as is. Deletion will help nobody because they wont even see search results - they'll be told that the page was deleted, invited to search (which may or may not lead to relevant resutls), invited to create an article and/or be presented with an editing form. 100 people/year do not stumble uppon any given redirect - we know this for a fact because there are hundreds of thousands of redirects that receive single-digit page views per year - see Schlossbergbahn (Freiburg im Breisgau) for just one example. I know full well what the search engine is, but you have again missed the entire point that however good it is, it is less convenient for people to have to (1) find the link to search, (2) click it, (3) wait for search results (on slow connections or when the search engine gives an error this can be significant), (4) work out which search results are relevant, (5) click the link, (6) wait for the page to load (again not everybody has a fast conneciton) than with the reidrect (1) arrive where they want to be. If we know what people are searching for we should never force them to go to via the search engine unnecessarily. I'm sorry if you interpret my placing the readers of the encyclopaedia above all else as a personal attack, but I will not bend from that view. Thryduulf (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

                Odds there there is or was a turf war or merger between these gangs, or some other newsworthy event that WP hasn't included yet (or decided against because it didn't quite pass WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, or whatever). Readers use this search string, so the user-friendly thing to do is get them to a page with both gangs conveniently linked for them; it's no different from liking a redir to a disambiguation page. The user-hateful thing to do would be to pretend we have no information to offer them. Deleting the redir wouldn't serve the project's interests, because the phrase is not misleading or ambiguous, nor is it a redir that should be deleted to inspire article creation (we don't need a Florencia 13 and Mara Salvatrucha actual article; that's not a discrete encyclopedic topic, even if it's been a string in the news frequently enough that people are searching on it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 04:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination reason is significantly incorrect, see above discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, as well as the nom's opposition against retargeting. Steel1943 (talk) 12:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Misleading and of no value. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been explained above, at length, how this is not misleading and what value it adds. You may disagree that it is better to help readers find the content they are looking for and to preserve a link that has worked for several years without any issues than it is to actively hinder people using the encyclopaedia for the purpose it was designed for (which are the options here), however you should not base that decision on factually inaccurate representations of the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sorry Thryduulf, I tend to agree with the delete side. Florencia 13 and Mara Salvatrucha are two separate groups and neither the current target nor the proposed retarget has any information about the interaction between them. This redirect has always been misleading and I think we should fix it now, rather than leave it in just because it gets hits. I'd imagine that a reader typing this title would be disappointed by the target because there is nothing at the target about the relationship between the two groups. Deryck C. 17:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 Weedon, Buckinghamshire as proposed. @Crouch, Swale: I'm sorry this discussion didn't generate anybody else's input, so I'm enacting the default outcome of "endorse suggestion". Deryck C. 17:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weedon Hill → Buckingham Park, Buckinghamshire  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Maybe this should be targeted to Weedon, Buckinghamshire as the settlement called "Weedon Hill" is in that civil parish, not Buckingham Park [1] however the article on Buckingham Park suggests Weedon Hill was, and maybe still is part of the housing development, this doesn't appear to apply to Berryfields which is now a CP in its own right. My suggestion is to retarget to Weedon with a hatnote to Buckingham Park. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 per WP:G8. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:54, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mandy Joye → Samantha B. Joye  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to a redlink. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 per WP:G8. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Samantha Joye → Samantha B. Joye  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to a redlink. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 per WP:G8. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mandy B. Joye → Samantha B. Joye  (talk · links · history · stats)     [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ] 

Redirect to a redlink. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.