Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 4, 2010

Hawaii Vice[edit]

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. Deletion of an article via AFD does not preclude creation of a redirect with the same name. Ruslik_Zero 16:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion debate for the movie series allows for merging and a redirect. If it meant no redirect it would say no redirect. UPCDAYZ (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the redirect. UPCDAYZ (talk) 19:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would people please, please stop speedy deleting the redirect because of the previous AFD which has nothing to do with whether the redirect should exist. UPCDAYZ (talk) 20:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kascha was known for the Hawaii Vice series of films. A redirect from that name to her article seems reasonable. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Redirect option was rejected by closer of recent AFD (a process that UPCDAYZ did his best to disrupt). Rather than taking the matter to DRV, the user unilaterally recreated the article as a redirect. When I nominated the new article/redirect for speedy deletion, he removed the speedy (which, since he had created the new article was not allowed) with the clearly invalid claim that redirects could not be speedied. After the new article was nevertheless speedily deleted, he again unilaterally recreated the article rather than going to DRV. This is pure disruption by an SPA who rejects both consensus and standard Wikipedia processes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • A flat out lie, the AFD closer said nothing about whether the article should redirect to Kascha Papillon. Wolfowitz has also removed references from Kascha Papillon under the excuse that they are spam, and has removed information from the article for being unsourced without tagging it as unsourced. Completely unprofessional vendeta against the article or maybe just against me, I don't know. UPCDAYZ (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • UPCDAYZ, stay civil. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I don't see where the idea of a redirect was proposed, let alone rejected, at the AfD discussion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Redirect is always an AFD closer's option, especially when a potential merge has been discussed; see the discussion here [1]. UPCDAYZ is simply being disruptive, as he was in the original AFD. It's completely unacceptable for an editor to remove AFD tags to frustrate deletion, as he did in the AFD discussion, to remove speedy tags from an article he created, and to immediately recreate the article after a legitimate speedy deletion rather than going to AFD -- then pile on various personal attacks, false accusations, and incivilities. On behalf of pornspam, to boot. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Malik Shabazz, with stern troutslap to UPCDAYZ for repeatedly recreating a deleted page without going through the right channels and removing speedy deletion templates from an article he created. Don't do that.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this redirect doesn't meet any of the criteria for deletion. Had this redirection been considered and rejected in the AFD that would have been different; but it wasn't. Mind you, as everyone around here know, I don't do popular culture and I can now see why ...! Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify one would think this would be about a vice squad in some Hawaiian police department, in real life. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 03:29, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's account of the disruptive behaviour of the nominator is substantially true, but this issue should not be decided on that basis. UPCDAYZ says "Keep the redirect", but gives no reason at all. Malik Shabazz has given a reasonalble reason for keeping, but if someone types "Hawaii Vice" into the search box is "Kascha Papillon" what they are most likely to be looking for? No. The anonymous suggestion of a dab page makes more sense, but I don't see a lot of point in it. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kascha was in a series of eight films under the Hawaii Vice name. And no one bothered to explain to me the labrynthine process for contesting an incorrectly based deletion. I know now speedy deletion of the redirect is wrong, since it was not the same as the deleted article, no thanks to Wikipedia's policy of "bite them till they go away." You couldve explained how this works before deleting it. UPCDAYZ (talk) 03:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

East Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 17:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Germany never took part in the Eurovision Song Contest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have no reason to doubt that, but how odd that the target article doesn't even mention the division, and just asserts that "Germany" won in 1982. I would lean towards keep, since the redirect is harmless and the target might provide useful information to someone who typed in the query, but if it's true that East Germany did not compete, it'd be nice if the article said that (with an appropriate source).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 15:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calling it just "Germany" in that context does appear to match the established practice in the field though: both the present retrospective practice on the official website of the organisation (e.g. [2]), and, if I remember correctly, also the practice back at the time – it was always "Allemagne X points" etc. As for where and how to provide info on non-participation: that would be a matter for the main Eurovision article. For describing the membership of countries in event X, we usually don't create redirects from all countries that didn't participate in X, redirecting to some other country that did participate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Before 1990, the term 'Germany' was ambiguous. I have added some text from the main article, to the target, since clarification about which country participated seems important. Whether we keep the present target, or retarget to Eurovision Song Contest#Participation, I am agnostic about. Either way, this is a foreseeable search term and the fact that East Germany didn't compete is something worthwhile to say. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Paediatrics - Schools, Community, inpatient hospital based childrens OT[edit]

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. Lenticel (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very long name which is very unlikely to be useful Muhandes (talk) 07:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indianapolis Men and Women's Work Release Program[edit]

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 Move to Indianapolis Men's Release Center (without redirect). Ruslik_Zero 16:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In spite of the AfD resulting in redirection, this string "Indianapolis Men and Women's Work Release Program" only occurred on Wikipedia. The real names of the non-notable entities are "Indianapolis Men's Release Center" and "Indianapolis Women's Work Release Center". Now, I don't care if somebody creates redirects for those strings, but this string is doubly unlikely; no source other than Wikipedia ever combined the men and women's facilities, and they use the word "Center", not "Program". Abductive (reasoning) 06:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - moving the redirect to Indianapolis Men's Release Center would, I agree, deal with the GFDL issue, but to delete the resulting redirect it would still have to meet WP:RFD#DELETE. Also, it would be very much against the spirit of the process. The AFD was closed as 'redirect' not 'delete'. Since, for the arguments you have adduced, you think that the redirect should be deleted then the correct appeal forum is WP:DRV, not here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with these "spirit" and "venue" arguments. When the other participants failed to notice the difference between "program" and "center", I contributed to the debate. The closer could have easily weighed my contribution appropriately. AfD is not a vote and there is a policy is that WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Abductive (reasoning) 21:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Childrens comics for gcse exam[edit]

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. Lenticel (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems nonsense to me but maybe I'm missing something Muhandes (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't quite tell by Googling around, but I think at some point there has been some material about comic books included in the Media Studies portion of the GCSE, which is a British competency exam of some sort. Here someone's posted a mock GCSE exam on comics; here the Telegraph points to the 2006 media exam, which was on children's comics, as an example of the dumbing-down of the test. This is all very interesting, of course, but as a redirect this is obscure and unhelpful. Comics is a particularly terrible target; if this issue were mentioned at GCSE#Criticism or someplace similar then the redirect should target there, but it's not. Also, "Childrens" is a misspelling.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what happened was that an editor wrote a page as a revision aid on children's comics for GCSE. After a couple of moves the content finished up at Children's comics. This, in turn, was redirected to Comics. However, I agree that the title of the redirect is confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_July_4&oldid=1148047642"