Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

May 21

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 21, 2015.

Th.Wolf

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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by the original nominator. Feel free to revert if I'm wrong and/or you actually want this deleted. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  00:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect was mistakenly nominated at
speedy deletion criterion G7, but it was declined. Maybe the nominator was looking for a retargetting option, but I'm not sure. Steel1943 (talk) 20:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
@209.211.131.181: I created the redirect for you. Why don't you create an
WP:ACCOUNT? It'll allow you to create redirects like that in the future, which is a huge help to the project. Tavix | Talk  00:37, 22 May 2015 (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.

Template:Club

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 Template:Clubs. --BDD (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This redirect is counterintuitive - it has been added to articles in the context of a sports club or playing card suite, inadvertantly nominating it for speedy deletion. TB (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I think this is one of the first times ever I have seen a harmful redirect in the "Template:" namespace. Steel1943 (talk) 20:58, 21 May 2015 (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.

Backwards man

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. Deryck C. 19:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this is a gag from the movie, but to quote its 2006 AfD, "neither an individual article on this subject nor a redirect [to] Freddy Got Fingered is warranted." BDD (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete there are a lot of backwards men, some of them in horror. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no mention of the term in the target article. Per the film's page in Wikiquote, there is the following line in the film: "I'm the backwards man, the backwards man, I'm the backwards man, the backwards man. I can walk backwards fast as you can. I can walk backwards fast as you can". I don't know if that is really a notable line, but certainly does not merit a redirect of its own. Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 29 May 2015 (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.

Martin Van Buren/Inaugural Address

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 31#Martin Van Buren/Inaugural Address

Butcher of Gujarat

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 , perhaps surprisingly to some, delete. The previous RfD was about half a year ago and was closed as "keep" with the expectation that the target article would mention this phrase. Half a year has passed and that mention hasn't been added, so this RfD should be treated as a fresh discussion. The discussion below leant towards the conclusion that the (unfixed) lack of mention of such phrase in the article is a valid reason for deletion, and BLP concerns are applicable in this situation, so it is better for us to delete than keep the redirect. Deryck C. 19:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Senseless attack page on the Biography of living people. Needs to be deleted, if you want to keep it, then redirect it to 2002 Gujarat riots instead of a living Prime Minister of a country. The term is a part of political mud slinging by rival political parties.C E (talk) 16:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago Aamir Khan said I have a dog named Shah Rukh. People call Karan Johar and Shah Rukh gay couple. Are we going to create a redirect on that towards the biography of living people.--C E (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two Editors who support this have a nice history
Your comment on
canvassing for votes through private emails (see note below). Mar4d (talk) 06:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see how your comment adds anything to your argument as, at best; if you were right in your claims, a fallacy and does not automatically make my judgement here wrong, and at worse; is a personal attack. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How does this redirect constitute an attack? We are not the ones using it. It has been used by critics and opponents alike, and is backed in reliable sources. If it was a vague term with little use, then that would be an issue. But that is not the case. And like I have said above, we have a precedent on redirects on controversial personalities (see above). Heck, even non-controversial personalities have redirects here. There is no such point given in
Wikipedia is not censored. Mar4d (talk) 18:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
If it's that significant, why isn't it discussed in the article? Is it discussed somewhere else? --BDD (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be discussed in the article. The article indeed notes that the subject is controversial for the Gujarat riots. However, that alone is not a single criterion for deletion. Mar4d (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is a criterion for deletion, actually. See Abecedare's comment below. --BDD (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite to the contrary, as per last closure, the topic is supposed to be discussed in the article itself but was probably removed or after the tedious discussion, no one was left with the energy to yet again dispute at the article itself. Something that is likely happening again with this early nomination. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:42, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete STRUCK DUPLICATE. WHAT'S THE POINT? YOUR NOMINATION ITSELF CALLS FOR DELETION  sami  talk 06:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC) All those who are supporting this redirect are Pakistanis who have personal hatred against Narendra Modi.C E (talk) 18:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is both an unprovable attack (and false as I am not Pakistani) and a complete irrelevancy, since it offers no rationale for deletion. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 19:26, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows? Can't be verified.--C E (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion that the term isn't used is not true [4] [5], while just a simple Google search returns over 18,500 results [6]. This notability issue was discussed and established in the previous RfD. It has enough common usage to be termed as a redirect. Also, there is no such criteria that a term loses its validity if it has not been used in recent times. If it hasn't been used in the last few weeks, that doesn't invalidate its past or future use, which is very common. See also
WP:NOTNEWS. Mar4d (talk) 19:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
You have not given a reason. See
WP:NOTVOTE. Mar4d (talk) 05:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:RFD#DELETE The redirect makes no sense.--85.9.20.154 (talk) 12:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm pretty sure the closer would be some one experienced enough to factor the consensus as it is done. There is also a standing consensus to keep this redirect from the previous RFD, I doubt much has changed if we keep that in to account. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, having this running count repeatedly and unnecessarily pop up in my watchlist for an already busy page is starting to get irritating. The closer will be perfectly capable of counting for himself. SpinningSpark 14:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Random newspaper attack that's not even mentioned in the page it redirects to. Shii (tock) 15:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just an excuse for some political posturing. Per Nyttend, does not appear to actually be in use in any case. SpinningSpark 16:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -It appears to me an inappropriate redirect term for following reasons;
  1. R#DELETE-#3
     -The redirect is an offensive/abusive term to refer an individual.
  2. The redirect term doesn't aid searches at all. A simple look at stats page here for last 90 days reveal the fact. (It has 101 views in last 90 days. Even my userpage have 398 views in this month and more than 1500 in last 90 days). The stats suggests that it is not a search-term what a redirect is supposed to facilitate.
  3. The redirect is not a common-term. A simple Google search reveals the origin of the term in a spiel of an opposition political party campaign during Indian General election 2014 (what media took as first-hand news on breaking stories). It was used during election campaigns and the usage ended with the endings of respective campaigns (few re-print may be found else where, or some copy-cat by few other organisation).
  4. BLP policy -I would like correct few editors here who are arguing since it is a redirect, it does not come under BLP policy. BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia
    .
Redirect is in violation of
BLPCRIME
policy. Given that verdict has been in subjects' favour, he must not be treated guilty what this redirect is probably meant to portray.
5.
Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Actually a more useful retarget would be 2002 Gujarat riots since that is where the usage originates from. Mar4d (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that, but the phrase isn't mentioned there. If it becomes mentioned and sourced there, it would be the more appropriate target, but that isn't the case right now. Tavix | Talk  06:06, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and lock per
    WP:RNEUTRAL clause # 3. The title of the redirect has been used in multiple sources 1 2 3 4 et al. The redirect should be kept for because it provides an alternative means of reaching it because a number of press reports use the term. Since the term has nowhere been used in the article, it does not violate BLP policy.  sami  talk 06:32, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Your sources shows it is not search term, sources you have given shows only one opposition politician calling him Butcher to gather some muslim votes in elections. Nothing else. We are not communals, we have to think in logical way. If we are also thinking in communal way then what is difference between such biased politicians and wikipedians? --Human3015 Say Hey!! • 07:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can keep and redirect it to Mahmud of Ghazni.C E (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep BLP does not apply here, it's not an attack page. We also have similar redirects like
    Butcher of Bengal. Strong keep. Faizan (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
This is the page of current Prime Minister of India,not some Army General who took part in actual war with Bangladesh in 1971 and was directly involved in
1971 Bangladesh genocide. If Pakistani Prime Minister and President is not responsible for anti-Christian riots in Pakistan, Shia community bombings, Hazara community massacres, so Narendra Modi can't be demonized.C E (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2015 (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.

Knights who say ecky-ecky-ecky-ecky-p'tang, zzoo-boing, gdgdbaaoizen

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. The discussion below has a majority consensus that this redirect is correct, unambiguous, and carries no surprises. Deryck C. 19:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Too silly, and that's not even how it's spelt according to the article. Double sharp (talk) 15:29, 21 May 2015 (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.

Scotland in other languages

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 Ecosse, dabify, delete, and delete, respectively. --BDD (talk) 14:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:RFOREIGN. Scotland has no affinity with French, German or Swedish. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:RFOREIGN. Whether or not you agree with that argument is what you should be saying. In the interest of not pissing other people off, I'd suggest you not use that phrase unless there literally isn't any reason for deletion suggested. Tavix | Talk  17:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I insist on noting that no argument has been presented for deletion, because in cases where an argument has been presented to support deletion, it's proper to examine it and either refute it or explain why (it/they) (is/are) less important than the reasons to keep. In cases like this one, where literally no reason for deletion has been suggested, it's important to note that. If you don't like it, stop nominating redirects for deletion without presenting a reason to do so. You might assert that you've done so, but my niece might assert that she's the Queen of Slabovia, and many people are happy to assert the Earth is 6018 years old. Asserting something doesn't make it true. Here, no argument has been presented to support deletion, and that's important to my thinking about the issue. WilyD 10:06, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually completely wrong. The eight section listing reasons to delete explicitly mentions foreign language redirects to subjects that are not related to that language as a reason to delete. I may be wrong but I think that has been there for quite some time. In this case the argument is that the foreign names for Scotland are from languages that are not meaningfully related to that country so therefore they are not needed on the English Wikipedia. The essay referred to was a reiteration of this existing concept. The poont being is that arguing that a person who mentions the foriegn language redirects are not connected to the subject is not proving a reason for deletion of the redirects when it is driectly supported by a subsection of what literally is titled reasons for deletion does not make sense --70.27.231.57 (talk) 01:56, 23 May 2015 (UTC)--70.27.231.57 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:RFOREIGN. It is a an argument for deletion, and a valid one at that. Tavix | Talk  05:04, 23 May 2015 (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.

Future years in country redirects created by Coekon

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 all. Deryck C. 19:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per

WP:CRYSTAL and as confusing because these pages don't mention any future events. Tavix | Talk  02:15, 21 May 2015 (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/2015_May_21&oldid=1136083093"