Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 24

Continuing process started by 137.151.174.128 on 22 September - edit summary given at time of posting was "This may be qualified for deletion because it's relatively obscure, plausible POV and maybe a joke." I offer no recommendation for the time being. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete R3 implausible misnomer. So tagged. WP:BLP violation as well. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do not think this is a BLP violation, because firstly, she legitimately referred to herself under that nickname with her "the only difference between me and a pitbull, is lipstick" line, and multiple published sources have acknowledged this. ViperSnake151 00:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, but not speedy. Bwrs (talk) 01:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, she did not refer to herself as a pit bull with lipstick. She said the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull is lipstick. Corvus cornix_talk 02:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Corvus cornix. JuJube (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an attack page. It's debatable as to which it ventures into CSD G10 territory. It's clear that this was an attempt to parody (or to satirise?) her famous line, but this is so blunt as to come across as a personal attack. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not an attack page (she used the term when describing herself), but still implausible and...well, quite frankly, stupid. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is a name that is highly unlikely to be searched for, and may be considered to be an attack. --rogerd (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nonsense, POV and unneded. abf /talk to me/ 18:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and somebody please explain me, why this even needs a discussion as it's nothing except a very obvious insult. --TheK (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-target to Public image and reception of Sarah Palin or Soccer mom#Hockey mom. The term is mentioned in both places and this did have enough of a media flap to be a likely search term. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I set it to Public_image_and_reception_of_Sarah_Palin#Persona, where it mentions her lipstick line. ViperSnake151 23:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that it is perceived to be a slam at her. --rogerd (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support this, but I'd like to point out redirects don't have to be neutral. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, see WP:RFD#Neutrality of redirects. One aspect of redirects is to help people navigate to where information is found. This has enough usage, including within reliable news sources, that it's a likely search term. The media flap over this term is covered by Wikipedia & we do a disservice to our readers by eliminating a convenient navigation aid. As long as it redirects to where the phrase is discussed (and NOT to Palin herself), then the redirect does not meet WP:RFD#Reasons for deleting, but does meet WP:RFD#Reasons for not deleting. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Corvus cornix. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Term appears nowhere in the target; no apparent context. Prior to this nomination, all of its edits were in a span of 36 minutes (5 May 2008), first as a stub, then tagged for CSD A7, {{holdon}}, expansion to about 1500 words... and then redirected. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I remember trying to find out what this was (I guessed it was a small invitational body), but I never did find anything that seemed relevant. No info equals no article, very little likelihood of it being searched for, and no real way to figure out if it actually redirected where it should be. MSJapan (talk) 03:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per MSJapan, non-notable, the google turn up nothing of any real notability. WegianWarrior (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target article; no apparent connection here. History of redirect indicates an apparent attempt to write a stub article that was subsequently abandoned and re-establishing the redirect. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no info available, and not really relevant to the topic if there was. MSJapan (talk) 03:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Term appears nowhere in the target article. Redirect was created about one year after an AfD discussion that resulted in deletion in December 2005.

• Delete - per nom. Attempt to retain deleted material. MSJapan (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also add Freemasonry Today → Freemasonry, a redirect created five months after the close of a 2006 AfD discussion of an article about a periodical of that name (discussion closed as "delete"). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon-IP, the fact that a redirect is created after an AfD does not invalidate the redirect. JASpencer (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Baigent is now the target. JASpencer (talk) 22:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Aside from the attempt to retain deleted material against consensus, the Baigent article is about Baigent, and the magazine gets one line. A redirect to an article with a throwaway mention of the redirect is not pertinent. MSJapan (talk) 03:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So? It's mentioned in the article as his current job (admittedly not clear whether full time or part time) which he has held since 2001, and it has a reference that shows that he is reported in at least one news story as editor of Freemasonry Today. JASpencer (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That in itself would be insufficient for WP:BIO if this were an AfD of the Baigent article. The fact is that the proposed new target mentions the periodical only trivially, thus having a problem with WP:CORP, among others. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - see also Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mahabone for the article that used to be where the redirect is now. WegianWarrior (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect format used in this redir is used as a dab for bio articles: William Preston (Freemason), Rob Morris (Freemason), etc., and I think it is fairly likely that there is no Freemason by the name of Mr. Entered Apprentice. Moreover, the parentheses make the search term unlikely. As it stands, it's also a double redirect; (Entered Apprentice points to Freemasonry#Degrees), and I think EA is a lot better as a search term than this is. Therefore, I would rather this was deleted as opposed to re-redirected. MSJapan (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this violates Wikipedia disambiguation guidelines as it does not have any articles on a Freemason with the name of Entered Apprentice. It is highly unlikely that anybody of that name has ever existed. Second, if there were multiple contexts/meanings for the term "Entered Apprentice", the appropriate disambiguation would be "Entered Apprentice (Freemasonry)"... but - third - there is only one context, and one article, in Wikipedia, with that term as its title. Thus no disambiguation was needed anyway. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargeted to Freemasonry to fix double redirect. This does not change the issue(s) at hand. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was redirected about three years ago. I only just found it because the way the search box works changed. It's a very ambiguous title (it's either Satanism's position on Freemasonry, or the allegation that Freemasonry is Satanism, which are two very different things), and it's not actually covered in the main article. MSJapan (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as having two potential, equally-likely search targets, namely Freemasonry and Satanism. The redirect's history indicates that the redirect was formed by the conversion of a POV fork; the talk page shows a brief discussion in which deletion was mentioned as a possibility, and seemed to be supported, but with no followup save the conversion to a redirect. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Christianity_and_Freemasonry#Claims_of_Satan_worship where these allegations are discussed. Personally I think that they are rubbish but it is a legitimate search term and to claim that the exact term is not used in there is being a bit too much of a barrack room lawyer. JASpencer (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: JASpencer's proposal for re-redirect addresses only one of several possible reasons to search the phrase "Freemasonry and Satanism" ... the search term could be used by people looking for information about Freemasonry's views on Satanism, or for information about Santanism's views on Freemasonry. It would be inappropriate to point them to an article section dealing with some Christian views of Freemasonry. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but these issues are not addressed anywhere else in Wikipedia. As far as Freemasonry's view on Satanism, that is dealt with in this section even if it is only (x says this, but it doesn't deal with this). It is a biased (pro-FM) and possibly over-detailed discussion but it is there and while it is then this is a valid redirect. Arguing that there is more than one valid search would argue against all redirects as there is bound to be 0.1% of searchers who aren't looking for the obvious search. JASpencer (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: this raises a broader issue... there are several "X religion and Freemasonry" articles... which are actually dealing with "X religion's views on Freemasonry" (the articles don't generally discuss Freemasonry's views on X religion). We should consider renaming all of these articles for clarity. Blueboar (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This (the broader issue) would be best discussed at the Wikiproject level. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, 147 and Blueboar - while the suggestion offered by JASpencer seems resonable, it is not neutral. WegianWarrior (talk) 13:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]