Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 10

December 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 10, 2017.

Marie Anthony[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. --BDD (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Anthony → Death of Caylee Anthony (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Does not seem like a useful search term, being that we already have Casey Anthony and Casey Marie Anthony redirects to the target article and Caylee's mom was never referred to by her middle name. There are also quite a few individuals named "Marie Anthony" (first and last name) that have no connections to this case, so this redirect is likely to cause confusion 69.118.35.101 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and also would be harmful to associate the Marie Anthonys with this event. Maybe they mean Marie Antoinette?^[sarcasm] AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:11, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As stated above, she wasn't commonly referred to as "C. Marie Anthony" or anything like that based on her middle name. This should be deleted. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:00, 14 December 2017 (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.

Template:Not here[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 19#Template:Not here

Crime in Puerto Rico[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 December 20#Crime in Puerto Rico

Wikipedia:ISAWIT[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 to Wikipedia:No original research#I-SAW-IT as undocumented alias for WP:I-SAW-IT. (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ISAWIT → Wikipedia:No original research (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete nonsensical shortcut, per WP:R#DELETE #5 / CSD WP:G1: patent nonsense. Mathglot (talk) 07:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I was the one who removed this from the linkbox at No original research. We already had three shortcuts of long standing, which is plenty for a linkbox, and it wasn't until I looked at the shortcut page that I realized it could mean "I saw it" in addition to "Is a wit". That said, it's kind of funny now that I know that. I have no objection to its continued existence if someone wants to use it. But I am going to !vote delete because as of now almost nobody has used it. And I don't think it should go back in the linkbox. – Margin1522 (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make it an undocumented alias for WP:I-SAW-IT Changing my !vote per Wbm1058. Now it looks like a useful pointer to the right section in a long page. – Margin1522 (talk) 00:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Make it an undocumented alias for WP:I-SAW-IT, which I just created. I had the same "is a wit" puzzlement when I first saw this, which I why I added that "documentation" to the redirect when I decoded it. The new redirect I created should be self-explanatory. Its purpose is to be used as a convenient link in edit summaries that explains why you just reverted an edit that added unsourced material from someone's personal experience, which would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Make it an undocumented alias for WP:I-SAW-IT: per Wbm1058. Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm ok with using it as long as it exists in and points to the right section... Huggums537 (talk) 19:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not seeing at all how this is even nonsensical, or "patent nonsense". It's the same thing without the dashes. If it points in the right direction, why is this even an issue? The redirect it's self was fine until the RfD edits botched it up. Boomer Vial^{Happy Holidays! • Contribs} 00:17, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Toddst1 (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect to another page First of all, you have mistakenly neglected the importance of the fact that the redirect does not lead to the beginning of the article, but rather to a specific section. "I saw it" means that the editor is using him/herself as the primary source of an edit that he/she is making, claiming to have witnessed the event firsthand. WP:ISAWIT redirects to a specific bullet on Wikipedia:No original research that begins with, "Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, [sic] because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material." This is exactly what, "I saw it," talks about. If you instead think that WP:ISAWIT should not redirect to the bullet that it currently redirects^[1]</ref>|group="nb"}} to, then it could instead be redirected to a section of WP:TRUTH. Also, concerning the is a wit interpretation, I don't think that there's any WP: page or section of one that WP:IS-A-WIT could redirect to, and even if there is, Wikipedia:No original research is most likely a better-known page.98.197.198.46 (talk) 02:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Actually, the person who inserted the RfD template accidentally broke the redirect by inserting the template before the redirect, but I'm not sure whether that was intentional because what the redirect should redirect to is in question.

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.

Winter Storm Aiden[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. --BDD (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Storm Aiden → 2017–18 North American winter (talk · links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/retarget/delete ]

Delete. All of the information about Winter Storm Aiden has been removed from the target article, and the only event there is Winter Storm Benji (under the in-definitive section title Early December winter storm), which is going to confuse the reader and make him/her think that that actually refers to Winter Storm Aiden, even though Winter Storm Aiden was at the beginning of October, two months earlier. Also, there's a draft page.that's been submitted for review by the AfC, and the redirect would only get in the way of the page move if the draft is accepted.98.197.198.46 (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2017 (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.

[1] Actually, the person who inserted the RfD template accidentally broke the redirect by inserting the template before the redirect, but I'm not sure whether that was intentional because what the redirect should redirect to is in question.

[1]