November 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 12, 2008
Redirects created en masse by a now-banned user
The result of the debate was
Delete all that haven't yet been retargeted or already deleted.
Tikiwont (
talk)
10:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
I would like to formally propose that we consolidate the many highly similar deletion discussions below. They are all arising out of various investigations into the contribution history of a
now-banned user. I believe that we could be more efficient if we consolidate, then cluster the redirects similar to the process that was successfully used in June (
here). (We can exclude discussions below that have already received substantive feedback.)
Is there consensus to treat this as a single case?
Rossami
(talk)
23:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Agree - even if one of those really was a legit redirect (as far as I can see they are all SNOWs or R3s), we can restore that one. But they seem all to be nonsensical.
So
Why
00:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- There appearing to be consensus to a consolidated approach, here's a start.
Rossami
(talk)
07:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
This is a very long list. Click "show" at right to expand it. The list itself is transcluded from a subpage in order to keep the discussion page from getting too badly cluttered. Click
here to edit the list.
|
General characteristics:
In all cases, these redirects were created as redirects. They have no significant history and were not the result of pagemoves.
The redirects have few or no inbound links. Those inbound links which do exist were (to the best of my ability to tell) created by the same user who created the redirect. In the majority of cases, they were created by the addition of a "see also" link, not even a link within the body of text.
Proposed groundrules for managing the list:
- If you see a redirect that could be profitably redirected, turned into a useful article or disambiguated,
be bold and do it. Then strike the entry here and note the new target.
- If the redirect actually makes sense, strike it off the list and briefly note your reason. (If there is disagreement, pull it off the list and open a stand-alone RfD.)
- If something is in the wrong category or you have a better idea for a header, just fix it.
- If you find another redirect with the same fact-pattern (and I imagine we will find many over the next few days), just add it.
- At the end of an extended discussion period, those left-over that can't find a home can be procedurally deleted.
Organizations of unproven notability redirected to one of their products or services
Organizations of unproven notability redirected to a general position
Organizations of unproven notability redirected to some other target on the basis of a single routine event or news story
A characteristic redirected to a single product having that characteristic
Self-evident phrases
Other potentially ambiguous or misleading
Need investigation/sorting
Moved to RfD for more detailed discussion (all RfDs in this section are now closed)
|
- Agree - we should eliminate the proprietary redirects with all due speed, plus the nonsensical ones. The rest need to be checked on a case-by-case basis.
147.70.242.40, temporarily at
147.70.242.41 (
talk)
15:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Agree Looks pretty unambiguous by now,none of these serve any purpose.
Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (
Broken clamshells •
Otter chirps •
HELP)
20:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Disagree - at least a few of the redirects are obviously keepable. To be honest, I don't know enough about these topics to know whether most of the redirects are any good without doing research. But I don't believe that Mac was attempting to vandalise. If all his edits were intentionally disruptive, he hid it well. The redirects ought to be considered on their merits and not judged by the user who created them. -
Richard Cavell (
talk)
03:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I think that if you read the "ground rules" of the list, you'll see that your concerns are accommodated. Any valid redirects in the list can be struck; disagreements on validity can be discussed on an individual basis if the redirect in contention is presented for its own RfD discussion. I agree with Richard Cavell in that it doesn't appear that Mac's redirect creations were malicious in nature, but many, if not most, were questionable and require oversight after having a few dozen of his redirect brought here. It's not the 500+ that we had to do at once in June, but Mac's lack of interaction after repeated requests for comment triggered all this, it seems. Speaking for myself only, I believe that all of Mac's edits were in good faith.
B.Wind (
talk)
04:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not entirely sure what the difference is between these 'ground rules' and what would be done if each redirect were brought to discussion in the usual way. Each redirect ought to be considered on its own merits. -
Richard Cavell (
talk)
04:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The argument in favor of consolidation is based upon the experience shown below (some still visible but some now hidden in the pagehistory for this and the prior day). I agree that every redirect needs to be individually researched and investigated. What I kept noticing, though, was that the investigation kept yielding the same results. I copied essentially the same write-up of findings into several dozen discussions.
This user created literally hundreds of redirects and if the initial trends hold true, the majority of them will end up deleted and the remainder retargetted. The time and repetitive edits needed to nominate, list, discuss, close, etc. is high. The intent of this exception process is that we individually investigate but then cluster the results in order to reduce some of the overhead load on our discussion process. No one, for example, should take my word for it that a particular redirect is an example of a "non-notable company being inappropriately redirected to one of it's products". But if, after your investigation, you find exactly the same thing, it would be efficient to not have to repeat yourself 25 times. That's the idea, anyway. It seemed to work back in June.
Rossami
(talk)
- Agree Seems pretty straight-up way of dealing with the mess. And a hat-tip to Rossami for taking the time on this.
Eusebeus (
talk)
18:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Agree. Useful ones can be seperated and dealt with individually.
Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (
t·
c·
r)
17:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was
speedy delete as implausible redirect.
...
discospinster
talk
16:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
Company name appears nowhere in target article. This borders on speedy territory as connection between redirect and target is elusive and may be proprietary in nature. Originated by the same editor who started the two below this.
147.70.242.40, temporarily at
147.70.242.41 (
talk)
17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy Delete as
WP:R3 or even
WP:G3, and tagged as such. Doesn't appear to be a useful contribution. Companies are entirely different. --
UsaSatsui (
talk)
18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Talk about an obscure connection. Per
this news story, Haigh's Chocolates recently decided to start purchasing biodegradable packaging make by Plantic Technologies. In isolation, I do not consider this a good speedy-deletion candidate. And I don't think it qualifies under CSD R3 regardless. In aggregate with all the redirects that we're discussing below, I would like to recommend that we consolidate these cases into a single investigation of the redirects created by the now-banned user. If we consolidate, I think there is convincing evidence of a pattern of bad-faith edits to the point that it qualifies as
disruptive vandalism and would qualify under CSD G3. We had a similar case back in June
here that was successfully resolved through consolidation. The few useful redirects can be culled out or retargetted but let's stop discussing these in isolation.
Rossami
(talk)
23:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was
Deleted. Leaving it to the search function is a better option given VictorC's comments. --
JLaTondre (
talk)
23:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
not explained at target
76.66.192.6 (
talk)
09:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Biodiesel.
Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (
t·
c·
r)
11:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Gasoline, the only Wikipedia article that actually mentions biolene (as an additive to gasoline to produce biodiesel).
147.70.242.40, temporarily at
147.70.242.41 (
talk)
15:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Considering that biodiesel is supposed to come from non-petroleum sources, I can't see how this is even possible, since gasoline is a petroleum product, and adding an additive doesn't change that fact. The
biogasoline article makes no mention of "biolene", so this seems like an advertisement section in the gasoline article.
76.66.192.6 (
talk)
04:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: Biolene is an ambiguous term, used in more than one colloquial context. It is applicable, for example to biodiesel, ethanol, it's a brand name for a plastic sheet agricultural mulch, and a company name of a firm that makes ethylene oxide sterilization products, and a possible host of other things.
VictorC (
talk)
16:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was
Deleted. --
JLaTondre (
talk)
23:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
this could just as easily refer to the 1970s
76.66.192.6 (
talk)
08:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Disambiguate the page. --
UsaSatsui (
talk)
18:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- This can not be disambiguated because it has no independent meaning. Google returns a mere 7 hits for this phrase, all derivative of this page. The phrase does not exist and has no connection to any energy crisis, 2000s or otherwise. Parsing the phrase makes it clearer because the noun (petroleum) can't inflate. The price of petroleum could rise but that's not
inflation. The amount of petroleum could go up but that wouldn't cause an energy crisis. There's no way to parse this phrase so it makes sense.
Rossami
(talk)
23:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete nonsense redirect.
147.70.242.40, temporarily at
147.70.242.41 (
talk)
00:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Price of petroleum. I suppose that if a country can be said to experience 'inflation' and for that to be grammatically correct, then a single commodity can experience 'inflation' too. -
Richard Cavell (
talk)
05:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete : Ambiguous term which is too general for a redirect. This can refer to any of several historic situations dating back at least to the early 1900's, and a few situations in the 19th century (such as the discovery of paraffin in the mid 1800's); naive to restrict it to just the 2000's.
VictorC (
talk)
16:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was
Deleted. --
JLaTondre (
talk)
23:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
This could refer to the 1970's crisis
76.66.192.6 (
talk)
08:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - most highly unlikely search term ("oppressive" is far more likely to be used in terms of "oppression" and "oppressive regimes"): in this case, the title of the redirect is more of an editorial comment than an actual title.
147.70.242.40, temporarily at
147.70.242.41 (
talk)
19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Price of petroleum -
Richard Cavell (
talk)
05:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - The entire term is a POV term. In the unlikely event you are a gasoline manufacturer or a petroleum producer, the cost of gasoline wouldn't be oppressive, it would be advantageous. This term just furthers an opinion and a point of view that cannot be shared by all (albeit it is probably shared by most) and to preserve neutrality it should be removed. Secondly - if there is such a thing as oppression having to do with the cost of gasoline, it is an entirely different matter than the topic of the 2000s energy crises. Oppression and an energy crises do not align accurately. For oppression to exist there should be an identifiable oppressor. Thirdly - even if the first two points aren't applied, there has been more than one time in history when energy has been in short supply and caused populations to have hardship. So notwithstanding NPOV, nor topic alignment, the term isn't solely applicable to the 2000s. Delete.
VictorC (
talk)
16:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was
Re-targeted to
Compact car. --
JLaTondre (
talk)
23:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
A small car is anything smaller than a mid-sized (or anything smaller than a full-sized)
76.66.192.6 (
talk)
08:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Compact car. --
UsaSatsui (
talk)
18:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Dabify as several car types have been introduced as "small cars", such as
city cars,
compact cars,
subcompact cars,
Kei cars,
supermini cars, and (arguably)
pony cars.
147.70.242.40, temporarily at
147.70.242.41 (
talk)
19:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
compact car. -
Richard Cavell (
talk)
05:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was
Retarget to
Economy car.
Lenticel (
talk)
06:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
blatant advertising NPOV violation, this is not the only low cost car.
76.66.192.6 (
talk)
08:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
Delete. Alternately, Retarget to
Subcompact car. When I think of "low cost car", though, I thino of
these. --
UsaSatsui (
talk)
18:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete as there are too many possible targets for this redirect even if there were an agreement as to a criterion for calling a particular type of automobile "low cost" (low price? low maintenance cost? Would a
Volkswagen Beetle, which originally cost less than $500, qualify? How about a
Model T Ford?). Too many subjectivities here: it's better simply to get rid of it.
147.70.242.40, temporarily at
147.70.242.41 (
talk)
20:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - can't even make a good dab article out of this (too subjective for objective criteria). The term is too vague, too.
B.Wind (
talk)
04:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Economy car -
Richard Cavell (
talk)
05:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
Economy car.
Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (
t·
c·
r)
22:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
reply
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.