Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 15, 2012

ObL[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 retarget both to OBL. JohnCD (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Omar bin Laden also Jawadreventon (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2012 (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.

Eastern South America[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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguay and Argentina are in eastern south America also Jawadreventon (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete These redirects have their uses, Transjordan (region) redirects to Jordan pending the creation of an article about the region because Jordan consists roughly of the historic region of Transjordan, and Northern Levant redirect to Syria because Syria consists roughly of the Northern Levant. Brazil however extends way into western South America, and South America extends way south of Brazil. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:45, 23 December 2012 (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.

Sheik Osama[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 as valid {{R from alternative name}}. (non-admin closure) Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheik Osama → Osama bin Laden (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] Jawadreventon (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • why? - Nabla (talk) 03:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This term is used:
    • "Taliban leaders dispute bin Laden death". United Press International. 2011-05-05. Retrieved 2012-12-16. "The Americans would never be able to show any evidence that they killed Sheik Osama. I am saying with full authority that the Sheik has not been gunned down," a senior Taliban commander claimed, the report said.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    • "Video: Bin Laden wanted to attack Iraq". United Press International. 2008-07-08. Retrieved 2012-12-16. A statement by an al-Qaida leader who acted in a recent suicide attack in Afghanistan, Abu al-Hasan al-Saidi, said al-Qaida was also behind attacks on U.S. forces in Somalia. "At the time, Sheik Osama called on us to send our men to Somalia, and I trained the Somalis to fight," he said.
    • Lee Keath (2008-01-21). "Sympathizers seek answers from al-Qaida". USA Today. Retrieved 2012-12-16. The vast majority of questioners, identified only by their computer usernames, appear to be supporters of al-Qaida or the jihadi cause, often expressing praise for "our beloved sheik" and "the lion of jihad, Sheik Osama."
    • "Guantanamo Docket:Abdu Ali Al Haji Sharqawi". New York Times. 2008-11. Retrieved 2012-12-16. He stated there's a part of him that wants to join Zarqawi or Sheik Osama in the fight against the United States. The detainee stated he wanted to kill every American upon his release. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Since the term is used, the redirect is not pointless. When and if some other "Sheik Osama" emerges, the page should be changed from a redirect to a disambiguation page. Geo Swan (talk) 07:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Geo Swan, the redirect is used and correctly targetted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2012 (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.

Tower of Dubai[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. There are about 100 skyscrapers in Dubai. Including them all will make the dab page unreasonably large. In addition the purpose of a dab page is to disambiguate in between the different meanings of a word. I do not see any evidence that any other "tower" in Dubai has ever been referred to as "Tower of Dubai". I am not against a dab page if a reasonable list of buildings can be compiled. This will not require a new RFD though. Ruslik_Zero 15:50, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burj Khalifa is not the only tower in Dubai Jawadreventon (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2012 (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.

Sarah Beckett[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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable person presumably a victim not mentioned in redirect, these victim redirects have been deleted in the past. MilborneOne (talk) 14:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Her death is tragic, but she is not notable....William 16:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If this were an article rather than a redir it would have been A7 speedied. Tonywalton Talk 01:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though not because of the notability argument; redirects are cheap. To the contrary, the purpose of a redirect is to take readers to the article most proximate to what they're looking for - and so in general I'd say to keep a redirect like this one. However, the problem is simply that the name's too common. As a sheer matter of statistics, I'm shocked we don't have any other articles on "Sarah Beckett"s, but since it's a common enough name that someone could type it in searching for, say, an article on their professor or their favorite artist, it violates the principle of least astonishment to have it redirect anywhere. But, once again, I see no merit in the argument that it should be deleted simply because she's non-notable - a lack of notability is often why a redirect, as opposed to an article, exists in the first place. — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:11, 20 December 2012 (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.

Sintra National History Museum[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

mistake, not used, 10 month old but given the low traffic nature of the article I'd say it qualifies as fairly new Nabla (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Very likely typo. Weihang7 (talk) 04:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - incredibly plausible search term, I had to re-read them two several times to even notice the difference, so they're likely to get confused in people's minds. WilyD 11:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless there actually is a Sintra National History Museum, in which case a dab page might be useful. Tonywalton Talk 01:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per all above - as a child I frequently made this exact mistake with the name of the Natural History Museum in London. @Tonywalton: If there is then Google doesn't know about it, the only hits for "Sintra national history museum" as an exact phrase are the redirect, this discusison about it and its entry in the RfD category. Thryduulf (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wily's rationale. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 21:01, 20 December 2012 (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.

MCT (rocket engine)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — as the creator of this article in October 2012, I propose the redir for deletion because the MCT rocket engine does not exist, as confirmed now by the company, and the existence of the redir in Wikipedia implies (incorrectly) otherwise. The early news reports were wrong, and have since been corrected. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fuller discussion of this topic, and a consensus on the matter of the non-existence of this engine development project, on the Talk:SpaceX rocket engine family Talk page. N2e (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep, as these erroneous reports are still floating around the interwebs. In the target article, mention that "several media sources incorrectly stated that the MCT rocket engine...These reports were later corrected by SpaceX..." or something like that. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Nonexistence isn't a bar per se to having an article or a redir, and an article/redir is no guarantee that a thing actually exists (presumably neither Harry Potter nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster really exist). If the target article implies that the MCT exists it should be fixed. Tonywalton Talk 02:02, 20 December 2012 (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:Wikigraphist[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 deleted as the creation of a banned user (WP:CSD#G5). Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a "wikigraphist" is a member of the WP: Graphics Lab, and not a cleanup template. Wikigraphist and WP:Wikigraphist are undefined WikiJargon. 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:57, 15 December 2012 (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.

Wikipedia:IPA[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. No delete votes except the nominator.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result of move, extremely unlikely typo, cross-namespace redirect. Weihang7 (talk) 05:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep not a typo (how is this a typo? both are spelled the same way) not really sure that page should be in HELP namespace... -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 09:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a shortcut to the page, of which there are many. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this a shortcut? Weihang7 (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "WP:" psuedo-namespace expands to "Wikipedia:" so this is the shortcut "WP:IPA"
  • Keep Helps people find the page, which is the whole point of a redirect. I always forget that it's been moved to Help, and so I still to this day type "WP:IPA" when looking for this. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Which pages are in the Help namespace and which are in the Wikipedia namespace is often fairly arbitrary, so this clearly takes people to the page they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my observation, the pages in the Help namespace are mainly helpful for readers and users of Wikipedia, on the contrary, the pages in the WP namespace are mainly aids for editors. Weihang7 (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This page is equally useful to both readers and editors. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, bordering on WP:SNOW. In addition to its usefulness as a navigational aid and the arbitrariness of the help namespace, this redirect is linked from many thousands of pages, presumably through some IPA templates that still use the old link. Oren0 (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The criteria for deleting cross-namespace redirects is if they are out of article space. see WP:R#DELETE. Otherwise it would have to be a confusing or misleading one but that's not the case either. WP: and HELP: are pretty synonymous with information about the project in both, so it makes perfect sense that users could look in both places.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 14:55, 17 December 2012 (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.

Who said for God created all men equal in his eyes?[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.Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. —Theopolisme 01:49, 15 December 2012 (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/2012_December_15&oldid=1139987625"