Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 16

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 Redirected to Euroscepticism#Types_of_euroscepticism. --Taelus (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Euroscepticism (soft) → Euroscepticism (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I doubt anyone is ever going to search for the term Euroscepticism (soft). I also doubt there will ever be a need for an article titled Euroscepticism (soft). Ridernyc (talk) 19:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but refine' target to Euroscepticism#Types of Euroscepticism. The first section after the lead in the Euroscepticism article differentiates between "hard" and "soft" Euroscepticism, so this isn't totally illogical. Just because a redirect title is not going to be a good article title is not reason to delete it - otherwise we'd delete the tens of thousands of {{R from other capitalisation}}, {{R from misspelling}} and similar redirects. It is not doing any harm, so I don't see a reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 --Taelus (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• APA (shrinks) → American Psychiatric Association (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Recently created redirect using a derisory slang term for psychologists to refer to an organization. This redirect should never be used in main space. It is currently used in one talkpage and was used in only one article until I removed it just now. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize "shrink" is derisory slang. I was just looking for an easy way to distinguish the to APA's from one another in a link. We got American Psychiatric Association (called "shrinks" because they "shrink" the clients problem?) and American Psychological Association.

Is the issue that some people dislike the term shrink as applied to psychiatrists? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I think the issue is more that 'APA (shrinks)' is an unlikely search term (is a redirect of type 'X (Y)' ever useful?). American Psychiatric Association is already linked to from the APA and mental health professional, psychiatrist & psychologist from the Shrink disambiguation pages. That would appear to be sufficient to cover all bases. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No objection: I was thinking of links like Bush (41) and Bush (43) (although neither is in active use). So maybe I'll try something like APA (med) and APA (ology) when a contributor wants APA to go to the psychiatric or psychological association in question. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  If an editor wants to pipelink APA to the American Psychiatric Association, then they can just pipelink it directly to the article as [[American Psychiatric Association|APA]]. There's no reason why a pipelink has to go through a redirect. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a useful redirect, and a pipelink will do the job. --Uncle Ed (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 --Taelus (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Bernie Ebbers/ → Bernie Ebbers (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete, pointless redirect, implausible typo. ^Avic_ennasis @ 15:30, 14 Sivan 5771 / 16 June 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. R3 would be fine by me given the implausibility and lack of current usage, but I can see calling 5 months not recent enough. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep This is not an implausible typo, it's a commonly used nickname for the man with over 1,000 unique hits at Google Scholar and prominent use by Time and Forbes Magazines and the BBC.

Never mind, that was a bizarre typo which led me to believe that Bernie Ebbers itself was the suggested deletion. Obvious Delete.μηδείς (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Speedy deletion has already been declined due to age (correctly so). Thryduulf (talk) 18:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - implausible redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 No Consensus - An AfD decision to delete does not mean no redirects may be created. At the same time, the fact the article has existed before doesn't indicate it makes a good redirect either. As the target is currently at AfD, it may be better to renominate these redirects in the future and base the arguments on the merit of the redirect, not the AfD background. (Also as a note, there has been no merge here. The original article was deleted. The only public history available is of them being redirects.) --Taelus (talk) 15:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Mooseknuckle → Camel toe (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Moose knuckle → Camel toe (links to redirect • history • stats)

Prod for deletion, will cut and paste original rationale below.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 00:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Moose knuckle has already been deleted five times and discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moose knuckle--user:Dennis Bratland
• Keep the fact that this has been created as an article five times should tell you something. And even if it has been deleted as its own article there is no justification for deleting it as a redirect to an article where the subject has already been independently mentioned. Redirects are for reader convenience, deleting this redirect in no way serves that purpose. μηδείς (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The only wp:REDIRECT enumerated guideline stipulation that would indicate it to be a bad candidate for a redirect is the one that says, "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." --however, Moose knuckle is not distinctive enough of a slang term to merit its own article, in my opinion, rendering it OK, according to the applicable guidelines, for service as a useful redirect. It may be argued that the deleted article was closed as delete and not redirect but such an argument is of a more legalistic nature than the AfD process guiedelines themselves would support. Also, per WP guidelines and practice, whether information from the deleted Moose knuckle article should be considered appropriate for inclusion at Camel toe is to be determined at the latter's talkpage, not via the old AfD.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As with Visible penis line below, this was discussed extensively in Afd and the decision was delete, not merge. It's inappropriate to subvert an AfD decision to delete by merging it into some other article. If you dislike an AfD decision, the next step is Wikipedia:Deletion review, not a redirect and merge. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per afd controlling precedent...nothing new has been raised here that wasn't already on the table in that discussion mere days ago. Per Dennis Bratland, need to overturn the afd (for which this is not the venue) not end-run around it (borderline forum-shopping). DMacks (talk) 03:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is NO doctrine of "controlling precedent" etc. on Wikipedia but rather one of wp:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and its many corollaries (or, rather, as in this case: stuff-(that)-doesn't-exist).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 06:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually policy of following afd precedent for previously-afd-deleted items: speedy deletion criterion G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. The problems noted in the afd have not been resolved, therefore speedy is appropriate. And then the place to contest it is drv. DMacks (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it was deleted for being a dictionary definition. A redirect clearly isn't a dictionary definition. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we please have actual wikipedia policy rationales offered for deletion? There is no such policy that a name used for an article which has been deleted cannot be used as a redirect. Indeed, not a single one of the listed reasons for deleting a redirect Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F applies in this case. μηδείς (talk) 14:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD has 3 options: keep, delete, and merge. Merge means merge. Delete does not mean merge. This is simple common sense and it doesn't require a 5,000 word policy page to spell it out. WP:AfD states that the venue for disputing a deletion is WP:DRV. Refusal to get the point by trying to make an end run around community decisions is well defined and is prohibited. See WP:IDHT. Is all this an attempt to make a point? Because you want a specific policy written out telling you not to do what you're doing? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be that it is established forever, on the basis of one AfD, that all references to this term must forever be stricken from Wikipedia. That's an interesting new theory. But it has nothing to do with redirect policy or what the sources say, or the fact that the term was in the target article prior to the AfD even being raised.

Nor am I the issue. Accusing me of pointiness for commenting in a discussion I did not start has nothing to do with the issue at hand, and neither does "but I won the AfD" have anything to do with redirect policy. μηδείς (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, salt, minnow. Recreating this as a redirect feels very pointy, and like the AFD, the inclusion of this by redirect is tenuous at best (one reference found in a compendium of phrases). The only other alternative that I'd find acceptable is a soft redirect to the wiktionary definition, which is what this redirect is effectively doing. tedder (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that something "feels pointy" to someone is not a criterion for deleting a redirect under WP:REDIRECT. We've got plenty more than one source, including here at news here at scholar, here at books and 65,400 hits at plain old google for the two terms together. By themselves they have a lot more.

The phrase was already in the target article as a synonym/related term. Where are we instructed that a redirect to an already existing term cannot be created if the name of the redirect had been deleted before at AfD? Can we please have some policy reasons, and not references to the opinions and votes of editors, to justify a deletion? μηδείς (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI - The target, Camel toe, has now been listed for deletion (with the nominator's rationale referencing that a more-complete Wiktionary entry for this term was recently created).--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]