Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 6, 2009

Constantin Brancusi University;[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per CSD R3. Evil saltine (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. But since this resulted from a move (rather than merely creating a redirect), it might be good for this to go through an RfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Clearly a typo by the original article creator. The whole thing needed a lot of cleanup. I think deleting this should be uncontroversial. I have fixed the only article that linked to it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a clear candidate for speedy delete criterion R3, so I've marked it as such. --Zach425 talk/contribs 22:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Orestes (Greek mythology)[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term given changes to predicted text in search box. It isn't new so I can't speedy it. Some changes to the primary title have occured making this less likely of a search term. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right but if I remember well, it was found somewhere in Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot or came from a move. It seems that it appeared under this name in another encyclopedia. Redirects cost nothing. Unbelievably, it gets hits [1]. Eventually, if you still think that Wikipedia will get better if it is deleted, no problem from me. My opinion: Deletion requests in such cases are doing much more harm (by using our time) than a dead redirect.--FocalPoint (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it gets quite a few hits and is harmless. Also, I've retargeted to Orestes to eliminate the double redirect. --Zach425 talk/contribs 20:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as retargeted - it's not as improbable a search term as one might think, since there are several types of mythology (note the second and third words of the new target article). B.Wind (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmt The 'unlikely search term' bit comes from the parentheses. Protonk (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as retargeted -- It gets a few hits, it's not incorrect, and it's not hurting anybody. There's no reason not to keep it. —mako๛ 21:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Solved problems in physics[edit]

The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Jafeluv (talk) 09:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion of this redirect created by an editor (with a long history of humorous edits) in support of a joke (adding it to the See also section of Unsolved problems in physics) which was reverted here. ToET 14:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mark Ingram Jr.[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Note that the redirect has been retargeted to the newly created Mark Ingram, Jr. article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted, as Mark Ingram is the father of Mark Ingram Jr (as clearly shown in his article). There is currently no article for Mark Ingram Jr, so this should show as a redlink rather than a redirect back to the father's article. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment At the moment, Mark Ingram Jr does not meet WP:ATHLETE, hence the lack of an article (the history of the redirect shows that an stub article was created originally). the only article that links to the redirect page is the Mark Ingram page - the others are User pages/user talk pages, and the help desk question which drew my attention to the issue. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The stats link above shows that since the page was initially created, there have been no views of the page. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 13:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to think must have been an article at one point for the son. He is one of the premier players in the NCAA, and many other teammates of lesser status have pages created already. I don't know if there is a way to check up on this; however, if the page is lost or never existed somehow, I would jump right on at least a basic page for him. As I said, he is the base of the offense on a team that is in the top 5 in the NCAA, therefore certainly deserving of an entry.---Debollweevil (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As the history of the redirect page shows, there was a stub article created. A Speedy was declined, a PROD was replaced with the redirect. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 19:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just read WP:Athlete, and he certainly qualifies. "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport"...---Debollweevil (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be bold. There's no reason at all to intentionally create a redlink. If an article should be made, create the article. No need to delete the redirect first. --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is plenty of precedent for redirecting people's names to names of their more notable relatives. It's a bit early for a Mark Ingram Jr. article (until he has won some individual awards or gets drafted in an NFL draft); so I delinked his name in the article for his father. Note that the average college (American) football team has about 100 people on their roster and is allowed to take 67 of them on road games - this basic fact should tell anybody that merely being on an NCAA Division 1 team is (by itself) insufficient to meet WP:ATHLETE. In addition, Notability is not inherited. B.Wind (talk) 17:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect until the son becomes notable on his own and meets WP:ATHLETE. In the meantime, many semi-notable peoples' pages redirect to that of a notable parent/spouse. hmwitht 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

..."this basic fact should tell anybody that merely being on an NCAA Division 1 team is (by itself) insufficient to meet WP:ATHLETE"

Your logic puzzle (wink) doesn't do anything to address the issue of what WP:ATH actually says. He is a star player at the highest level of amateur play, not some 4th string guy who doesn't travel with the team. Furthermore, he was a freshman All-SEC player; if that isn't in the highest level for his age group, what is? ---Debollweevil (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on the last point, if you still don't believe that WP:ATH is met, than surely WP:ANYBIO is, due to his current status as a Doak Walker Award candidate, and last year as an All-SEC freshman.---Debollweevil (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Have you read the whole of point 2 of WP:ATHLETE, Debollweevil. That point is usually taken to cover Olympic and other athletes who participate in sports for which there is no corresponding professional level. Most NCAA football players don't qualify unless and until they play in the NFL, even if they are all-league selections. (Yes, I know there are some exceptions.) Deor (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, and it says "usually is"... In this sport, the highest amateur level is Division I, or perhaps the elite teams (All-league, etc), formed from players in this league. This gentleman applies to both. ---Debollweevil (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One more quick point to consider, Debollweevil: how many of the 12,000 players in NCAA Division 1 Football Bowl Subdivision actually meet WP:ATHLETE? (It's not a logic puzzle: it's a case of finding where to draw the line). Touching base with WP:WikiProject American football and seeing what they might have in mind might be very much worthwhile. B.Wind (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of that number of players, certainly only the notable ones qualify. Last year, when that stub was created, I would have agreed that he was not quite notable enough to warrant an encyclopedia article. This year, however, he is a starter, a Doak Walker Candidate, and has that freshman All-SEC player under his belt as well. Another point I'd like to add is that here on Wikipedia, the fact is that most notable NCAA Div I players have entries, and there are even things like the redshirt iconin Wikimedia that deal specifically with college level professionals and not adult pros (no redshirting in the pros). My point, in summary, is that this man is undeniably notable (for all the reasons scattered throughout my posts), and the purpose of the WP:'s is to clarify notability. A semantics battle over what the "highest level of amateur play" in NCAA Div I football is, does not seem positive to the bettering of Wikipedia. His notability is not in question; it's how his notability relates to WP:ATH and WP:ANYBIO. As an above poster was alluding to, since this is apparently a borderline issue, what is it going to hurt to give the guy an entry? ---Debollweevil (talk) 13:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot -- Debollweevil has created an article here so this particular discussion is moot. If we're going to talk about whether the article should be deleted or blanked due to WP:ATHLETE, that discussion should not happen here but on an WP:AfD or on Talk:Mark Ingram Jr.. If there is ultimately a decision to delete that article, I will probably argue for a very weak delete about whether Mark Ingram Jr. should redirect to Mark Ingram. I see the arguments both way but lean toward having no links than either (a) red links to articles that shouldn't be created (as per WP:REDLINK) or (b) blue links to articles about entirely different people who are likely to deserve their won article in the future. —mako๛ 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Category:LGBT Scotland[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, ambiguous-name category redirect, and the only one of its kind. The phrase "LGBT Scotland" could be intended for any number of LGBT topics (LGBT rights, people, groups, activities) related to Scotland, not just LGBT culture. While the redirect could theoretically be retargeted to the more general Category:LGBT in Scotland, consensus at CfD has generally been that categories should not have redirects without good reason. Delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - articles should use the correct category titles; redirect such as this encourage inaccuracy. If an editor is looking for a category relevant to LGBT Scotland, search results would surely be more useful than any redirect we could provide. Also, given the CfD consensus stated above, I see no reason to keep. --Zach425 talk/contribs 20:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I'm happy asking for a little more precision from people linking to categories that I am random editors making links from and to articles. —mako๛ 21:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mobile phone makers companies[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 11:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_6&oldid=1136083595"