Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 6

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overlong and unlikely search term, plus a misquote to boot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but only because it's a misquote :D -- Ned Scott 02:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a misquote, and therefore very unlikely as a search term.
• Delete Misquote. GlassCobra 12:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Highly unlikely search term. CTJF83Talk 06:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless. Academie (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. AFD recommendations to redirect are just that, recommendations. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll cheerfully admit that I'm nominating this for deletion as a result of something I read at Wikipedia Review, but I don't think that diminishes the validity of this at all.. Judd Bagley's connection to Overstock.com is that he was a onetime employee, and that he also worked for another of Patrick Byrne's companies at one point. The article to which he currently redirects does not so much as mention him, and any reader seeking information about him will not be served by being redirected to it. This is not about Bagley's tactics in the whole naked shorting affair, which I find as repugnant as anybody, but about the usefulness of this redirect, which is nil. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Redirect was created in the wake of second AfD of Judd Bagley article. The discussion for the first AfD can be found here. The first AfD (January 2007) closed as "delete"; the second (September 2007) closed as "delete and redirect". 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the Overstock article does not seem to mention Bagley, and thus the connection is unexplained to the reader, delete. Anyone searching for Bagley (and would anyone?) and being redirected there, might have no idea why.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep after having read the AfD. Although he's not mentioned in the article the name's more than likely to be a search term and Judd Bagley is very much associated in Overstock's crusade. JASpencer (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • So if we accept that he is likely to be used as a search term, what purpose is there in directing the searcher to an article that doesn't so much as mention him? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If his association with overstock is not significant enough to be mentioned in the article, how is it significant enough for a redirect to the article?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • One of the more irritating points in these deletion discussions is the insistence that things have to be mentioned in the articles. Well, it should say it in the policy if it's going to be insisted on. It doesn't. It's a useful indication but it is not a hard a fast rule. (1) Could it be useful ofr a background on Judd Bagley? Yes. (2) Is it a potential search term? Yes. Why is it easier to get a redirect deleted than an article? JASpencer (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because articles need citations, and tell the reader what the connections are especially with BLPs. You want to link a guy to a company, without any explanation of the link, and with no citations to back it up. There's no way a redirect can be qualified and explained - thus we need to be very careful.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Besides that, let's assume that it is a search term, and somebody searches for Bagley and ends up at Overstock.com, where he isn't mentioned. How is the searcher served by that in any way? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment If this is deleted we are also removing an edit history and Talk:Judd Bagley. After some background reading I can see he's got a bad reputation as a wikistalker and there may be some desire to get rid of any mention of him, but I think that this would be ill advised. JASpencer (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ill advised because we are losing a discussion and edit history for a deletion with no gain. I'm not that worried about the reputation for whitewashing criticism, as Wikipedia (unfairly) lost much credit for that a while ago. JASpencer (talk) 22:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So - and I'm not trying to be snarky here - it is your position that if we have an article with extensive discussion and history, but whose subject we decide is not worthy of an article, it's better to redirect it to an article with no mention of the subject than it is to delete it? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While there is history behind this redirect, the second AfD determined that there were WP:BLP issues that justified the deletion of that history. It appears that when that decision was closed, the "delete" side of the decision was overlooked. If a mention had remained in the target article, I would support keeping the redirect. However, that content was also removed, apparently on BLP concerns. Without the excluded content, any potential reader will be left with a non sequitur when attempting to follow the redirect. I don't see that this redirect helps our readers. Rossami (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In the words of Deep Thought, "Tricky." Normally after an AfD that closes as "delete and redirect", keeping the redirect would be the logical thing to do, but there is nothing in the current version of the target article even hinting at Judd Bagley. Twice articles about him have been deleted. Unless there is another article which mentions him by name, it would be best to delete. 147.70.242.40 (talk), temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 15:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Withdrawn, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect does not make sense. 6D has nothing to do with sixpence. A rather unlikely search item for the target specified. Nsk92 (talk) 03:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC) Withdraw the nom, in view of the comment by 147.70.242.40. I did not know that 6d. was an abbreviation for sixpence in UK pre-decimal coinage. Nsk92 (talk) 15:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - "6d" (with lower case "d") would be the appropriate way to abbreviate six pence in UK pre-decimal coinage, but a capitalised D would seem to be more confusing than not. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 00:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious concern with this. It looks like an off hand, anti-communist gag that REALLY doesn't belong here. I would like to propose the speedy deletion of this redirect. --Ipatrol (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as potentially confusing. Would any admin like to speedy this as a test? 147.70.242.40 on workmate's computer (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy already agreed as not the route - however; I think this redirect will only serve to create flame wars, unrest and upset.

Scenario: Editor 1 reverts some edits by Editor 2. Editor 2 suggests talk page. Editor 2 says "Well I wrote that so please don't touch it". Editor 1 says "Well, sorry but you don't own the article."

Other Scenario: Editor 1 reverts some edits by Editor 2. Editor 2 suggests talk page. Editor 2 says "Well I wrote that so please don't touch it". Editor 1 says "Well, sorry but you don't own the article."

(please hover other the blue links to get my drift). What's the outcome of being accused of ownership issues? What's the outcome of being accused of ownership issues with a bunch of sarcasm thrown in? I've nothing against communism in this context, but it is clearly being used pejoratively. This redirect does not help, it only serves to hinder or belittle. No gag is worth irritating other editors and this does not encourage a collegial atmosphere. Delete Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• For goodness sake, it isn't a cold-war gag. It's simple "Wikipedia articles are not privately owned - please don't think this is yours but understand WP:COMMUNISM." Communism here is not red-socialism but the practice of holding ownership in COMMON - see also "living in a commune". It is a philosophy practised by the early Christians (Acts 4) and Jewish kibbutzim, not just Marxists. It is very appropriate as a wikipedia philosophy. Wikipedia is communism: no one owns the product and all work for the common good. Oh, Keep. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not really appropriate. GlassCobra 12:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Academie (talk) 18:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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