< January 7
January 9 >

January 8

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 8, 2016.

Unglue.it

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 15#Unglue.it

Xunan

[edit]
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. The discussion below reached a rough consensus that this isn't a helpful foreign-language redirect. Deryck C. 23:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what this refers to or its relation to Rhee. I tried looking for other places to point it; it's the name of Hunan in some other languages, but none that I could find that would satisfy WP:FORRED. When this was created, Unan was also redirected to Rhee's page. I've retargeted that to National Autonomous University of Nicaragua, where UNAN already redirected. I also examined the target article as it stood when both of these redirects were created, but couldn't find an answer there either. BDD (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The film isn't listed at List of Chinese films of the 1980s, but it looks like a lot is missing from there. Maybe if we have an article on the director? Failing a way to incorporate the film, just redirecting to Baima, Hunan would work, since populated places are automatically notable. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2016 (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.

Undeserving poor

[edit]
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. --BDD (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is another interesting Neelix redirect. The article for Underclass mentions (in passing) the concept of desert with respect to economically disadvantaged communities, but I think this redirect ultimately does more harm than good by perpetuating the notion that disadvantaged communities are undeserving of assistance. Right now, I think this is both confusing and offensive; this could just as easily target Desert (philosophy) or Just-world hypothesis. If someone wants to create an article about the concept of moral desert and economically disadvantaged communities, that's fine by me, but this redirect should be deleted. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive to whom? It seems like a positive sentiment, if NPOV. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Legacypac interpreted the statement as poor people who didn't deserve something as opposed to people that did not deserve to be poor.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 06:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for clarifying. I was assuming that they were just being considered undeserving of their lot in life. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2016 (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.

Uploading and Downloading

[edit]
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. There isn't really a specific CSD for such items, but I think WP:IAR covers it. I routinely delete variants like this after closing an RfD; it's just so unlikely that there wouldn't be consensus to delete these just days after there was consensus to delete Uploading and downloading. As always, contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 December 26#Uploading and downloading was recently closed. However, it forgot two redirects that should have been included: "Uploading and Downloading" and "Uploading & downloading". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2016 (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.
Thanks. You're probably right about G6; it's very much like a ((Db-xfd)) situation. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12817Federica

[edit]
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. I'll tag these with ((R from modification)), which will also mark them as unprintworthy. My guess is that the Gracekelly stub was created partially because redirects tagged for RfD get treated as articles and are easier for less experienced editors to edit, but this can be revisited if these redirects prove problematic. --BDD (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 12817Federica. Of the 19,585 minor planets on Wikipedia, 0 follow the convention of missing a space between the number and the name. However, 17 redirects, out of ~16,000 redirects, make this exception. Furthermore, this is not a noteworthy minor planet (12817 Federica (with a space) is also a redirect to a list), nor is this a reasonable typo to account for via redirect.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  05:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they're cheap, but they're a nuisance to those maintaining the categories, articles, and redirects. Without these few errant redirects, all minor planet redirects are treated as potential articles which may one day achieve notability. We (WP:AST) operate on them with this assumption, with category maintenance, and comments such as this, etc., which are not intended for redirects which will never be reverted into an article.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They are cheap, but in this case they are harmful. There is, literally, an astronomical number of redirects and articles to maintain and manage for asteroids/minor planets. Crap redirects screws up bot maintenance, categorization efforts, etc. and need to be handled manually. We do not need this extra work for pointless redirects. Nuke 'em. They serve no purpose. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument on the surface would make me change my !vote if I understood it better. You call these a "nuisance" and give the reason that they will never be reverted into articles as the spaced redirects might someday be. There are literally millions of redirects on Wikipedia that will never be articles for varying reasons. So I don't understand why these few mod redirects have become such a nuisance, when all the others are no nuisance at all. Perhaps you can elaborate?  Paine  12:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning for these deletions is unique (as far as I know) to WP:AST due to the large number of bot-created articles back in and around 2009; see this long history. I don't believe the general guidelines/practices apply here, as they would for the typical (or just any other) redirect on Wikipedia, nor should the outcome of this RfD set any sort of precedent which could apply outside WP:AST.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your candor! I am an astronomy lover, yet I've never felt myself technically competent enough to actually join WP:AST. I am very much in awe of the project's record of article improvement. The only reason I became involved with these redirects has to do with various page moves and bot-fixings of double redirects that resulted in unsynchronized talk pages to their subject pages. I've restored several of these sync needs, so I'm in the edit histories of those pages. I agree with you in principle; however, these are only ten redirects of how many? Their creations suggest that they are helpful to someone just like any other modified title, whether it be plurals, other capitalizations, typos, and so on. If these ten of all those many others present a problem for the members and bots of the astronomy project, then that must be weighed against the editors who will have the rug pulled out from under them if these are deleted. If the main nuisance is to the bots, and the addition to these redirects of the ((nobots)) template is appropriate, then that may help some. Thank you again, and Happy New Year! Paine  22:18, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rossami, I hope you would NOT recommend that Wikipedia create 455,000 re-directs for all numbered asteroids as asteroids numbered above 10,000 almost always point to a very generic list article. This is a maintenance concern as all asteroids were given notability prior to 2012. -- Kheider (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, it's hardly a problem at all. If it's decided to keep the stub, then we move it to the right title, otherwise we do whatever this thread says to do with the redirect. Easy peasy. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figured as much. Before I trimmed it there was a long run-on sentence which continued with more details about Grace Kelly and various shows she was in, but it was completely irrelevant. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2016 (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.
More