March 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 13, 2012
Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction
- 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 all. Ruslik_Zero 18:23, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are all cross-namespace redirects that make no sense. I see no reason we shouldn't have an NPOV article on the subject (and we might), but if it has been decided that such an article shouldn't exist, these should redirect to a page showing that decision. If there's no such decision and no such article, then they should be deleted.
Prosfilaes (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. No reason to expect that a reader researching any of these topics would prefer to be redirected instead to a Wikipedia policy page that provides no information relating to the topics. TJRC (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- These were names in a long chain of pagemoves ultimately ending at List of books portraying sexual relations between minors and adults, a page deleted as the result of this AfD. During the deletion debate, that page was briefly turned into a redirect to the policy page in violation of consensus. That decision was quickly reverted. Unfortunately, Xqbot attempted to resolve the double-redirects and failed to identify when the base redirect was reverted. (Another reason that I really don't trust bots for this kind of thing.) Nevertheless, the proper target was validly deleted at AfD. These left-over redirects should be deleted in accordance with CSD#G8. Rossami (talk) 02:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per WP:CSD § G8 per Rossami's findings. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per the results of Rossami's research. bobrayner (talk)
- 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.
Misinformation and rumors about the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
- 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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 18:26, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Implausible search term with a POV concern.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- Has existed since 2004, so may be externally linked; can someone determine if #/views indicate use? Dru of Id (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The content originally at this page was moved (eventually) to Rumors about the September 11 attacks where it was eventually deleted in accordance with this AfD. The page was turned into a redirect to the current title in 2005 and has not created any noticable confusion or controversy since. Redirects to resolve POV concerns are a widely accepted solution and tend to prevent the re-creation of POV forks. Keep unless there is actual evidence of harm. Rossami (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: 15 hits for 90 days is beyond noise level. Given the quirky name and the deletion of content in AfD I see no reason to preserve this. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete- Given the figure above, unused & not needed. Dru of Id (talk) 12:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, no valid reasons to delete and the target is logical D O N D E groovily Talk to me 16:45, 18 March 2012 (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.
Self-reflexive song
- 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 self-reflection. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can article space redirect to category space? I don't think so. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 11:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I tried to figure this one out myself just before the nomination. I don't see how it serves any purpose as is. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete but it is kind of amusing. LeSnail (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, an article-space title can redirect to a Category if, for example, the page was a list that was subsequently turned into a Category. (We had lots of them before the Category function was added to the software and a number are still around.) That does not seem to be the case here, though. This page was first created as a cross-namespace redirect. I note that the category itself has been nominated for deletion. It seems fairly trivial to me but there are peer-level categories for self-reflexive books, etc and looks like it will be kept. Retarget to Self-reference, the general concept to which all of these individual categories apply. Rossami (talk) 01:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I only redirected "self-reflexive song" to this page because it doesn't have a page of its own and people might want to know what it is without knowing that there is a category for it. I know that searches never seem to redirect to category pages, but I'm not sure if there's a rule against it. Djodjo666 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Self-reference would be a good idea, as this target is indeed the closest one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2012 (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.
Template:Infobox snack
- 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. JohnCD (talk) 16:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unused redirect. The original template was deleted per TFD here; recreated by same editor as a redirect instead. The editor in question is now indefinitely blocked for pointlessly creating redirects.
Note: I originally attempted to speedily this as G4, recreation of deleted content; that was declined with explanation that G4 was not applicable where the re-creation is as a redirect. Fair enough; but I still believe the page should be deleted, even if not speedily, hence this XfD. TJRC (talk) 00:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: this is the typical example of clutter making the maintenance of the target harder and encouraging a bad habit of using redirected names for the templates with no necessity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:14, 14 March 2012 (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.
Aqua Buddha
- 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
deletion The target article contains no reference to "Aqua Buddha" nor even a section called "College Activities". Therefore the redirect seems pointless and confusing. I searched "Aqua Buddha" on google [1]and it refers to a rather minor incident in Paul's life that seems too trivial to merit an article of its own although others might disagree. Smcg8374 (talk) 06:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: the plausible search term, no valid deletion rationale is present. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: There's nothing in the target, or apparently elsewhere on Wikipedia, about "Aqua Buddha". Anyone already familiar with its connection to Rand Paul is unlikely to be searching on it instead of on "Rand Paul"; unless maybe if they are seeking information about the incident, in which case they will be fruitlessly directed to the "Rand Paul" article which has nothing in it about the incident. Anyone not familiar with the incident, who sees a reference to "Aqua Buddha" and searches on it to find out what it's about, will be sent to the Rand Paul article for no apparent reason. So, regardless of whether the reader knows its connection to Rand Paul, the redirect simply wastes the readers time and impedes their ability to find information about it. It would be better to have the search fail and make clear that there is nothing about "Aqua Buddha" on Wikipedia. TJRC (talk) 20:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- (additional thoughts) Although the nom did not specifically identify a reason listed in WP:RFD for its deletion, specific citation is not required. It seems to me that at least criteria 2 (The redirect might cause confusion...) and 8 ([T]he redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name...) apply here. I'd also argue that nos. 3 (The redirect is offensive or abusive) and 5 (The redirect makes no sense) apply as well, but reasonable minds could differ on that; and in any event 2&8 are enough. TJRC (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2012 (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.