Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 9

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

October 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 9, 2013.

Сер Алекс Фергусон

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no connection between Sir Alex Ferguson and the Russian language to merit this redirect. BDD (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2013 (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.

Barrycade

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 Barricade. Ruslik_Zero 19:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, derogatory neologism with no evidence of significant usage outside small subset of conservative media. Tantamount to having an "Obummer" or "Obamaphone" redirect - nobody uses those terms outside a small partisan bubble. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - actually the use of this term is spreading, see here (albeit hyphenated) and The Guardian is a highly reliable, left of centre newspaper. Redirects are purely search aids so though the term may be derogatory that is not a reason for deletion - see WP:RNEUTRAL. It could be argued that this term doesn't appear in the article but a search for the word brings up a reference that explains its usage. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I created this because the plural Barrycades already existed and a plural redirect without a singular one is not very useful. I think both redirects are useful, because this is the current meme for various political opponents of the current government shutdown and that makes it a likely search term. (I would be fine with an "Obamaphone" redirect, too for the same reason. Likewise similar redirects from anti-Republican memes, if they point to neutral articles.) On the other hand, I do acknowledge that such redirects do have downsides; if consensus here is to delete, I won't lose any sleep. Either way, the decision should extend to the plural Barrycades as well. Miscellaneous user (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added Barrycades to this nomination. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, this could be kept due to RNEUTRAL, but that doesn't necessarily mean that that's the best course of action. And there are plenty of plausible typos that don't exist as redirects—I don't think it's accurate to say such and such is or is not plausible simply based on the existence (or not) of a redirect. --BDD (talk) 23:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I should have explained better. The evidence for lack of plausibility is that the stats for the months before October show zero hits (I could very well be wrong but my understanding is that these stats show attempts to use a search term even if it wasn't in existence at the time). In any case, if we are to retarget, to assist readers we should aim at taking them as quickly as possible to their likely destination. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm mostly just skeptical that this term will have any legs once the government shutdown ends. That's not a very good reason to delete, but it might be reason enough to treat it with a grain of salt. --BDD (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget, largely because of BDD's comment right above mine. Perhaps it right now is most commonly used in reference to the current shutdown, but I strongly doubt that it will retain this meaning, and before long it will largely be used by typo-committers and people who misremember the spelling of "barricade". We can always retarget it if future years retain "Barrycade" for the current shutdown. Nyttend (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget – Per BDD and Nyttend. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The term is not mentioned in the target article, apart from in references, so it shouldn't be on a disambiguation page. Otherwise, not a likely typo. Peter James (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2013 (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.

Leroy Barnes/Archive1

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would've thought this would be uncontroversial, but it's had a speedy declined before. This is the first time I've ever seen an archive page with a corresponding "article," and I'm at a loss trying to think of any value to it. It's certainly not a likely search term. (Please note that Leroy Barnes was recently moved to Nicky Barnes, hence the titling discrepancy.) BDD (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - certainly a curiosity. Originally this was a redirect to Leroy Barnes. The creator hasn't been on for a week or two but if they return in time it will be interesting to hear from them why it was created. On the one hand it is harmless, on the other apparently pointless. Either way, I am actually seeing no policy grounds on which we can delete it here, certainly not WP:RFD#DELETE. The Whispering Wind (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it meets several of those criteria. #2: The redirect appears to go to an archival subpage, but it doesn't. #8: No one is going to search for the subject under "Leroy Barnes/Archive," so "novel or obscure synonym" is giving this redirect too much credit if anything. I would also say #5, but that's more subjective. --BDD (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2013 (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.

The Terrible Towel

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 speedy closed as wrong forum. Since {{db-move}} has been declined this should now go to WP:RM/CM where it can get a full discussion. I have alerted the nominator. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 13:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Terrible Towel to make room for Terrible Towel. I tried to do this under {{db-move}} but was denied because typical practice is to avoid using an Article (grammar) for the title of articles (WP:NOUN).

However, WP:NOUN allows for "The" when it's "part of a proper name" and that's clearly the case. First, see all of the pictures of the towels at Commons:Category:Terrible Towel. Second, see the official trademark filing: THE TERRIBLE TOWEL. GrapedApe (talk) 04:02, 9 October 2013 (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/2013_October_9&oldid=1039437469"