Vanished user oerjio4kdm3 (talk | contribs) |
Vanished user oerjio4kdm3 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
*'''Delete''' This is getting silly. How many more ridiculous '-gate' redirects are there? '''<span style="color:#104E8B;font-size:80%;text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">[[User:Splette|SPLETTE]]</span> :]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Splette|<font style="color:#104E8B;font-size:90%">How's my driving?</font>]]</sup> 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' This is getting silly. How many more ridiculous '-gate' redirects are there? '''<span style="color:#104E8B;font-size:80%;text-shadow:#BBBBBB 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">[[User:Splette|SPLETTE]]</span> :]''' <sup>[[User_talk:Splette|<font style="color:#104E8B;font-size:90%">How's my driving?</font>]]</sup> 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' I haven't seen this referred to anywhere else - the glaciergate term has been far more widespreadly used. [[User:Thegoodlocust|TheGoodLocust]] ([[User talk:Thegoodlocust|talk]]) 06:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
====<span id="Amazongate">Amazongate</span>==== |
====<span id="Amazongate">Amazongate</span>==== |
Revision as of 06:05, 1 February 2010
January 30
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 30, 2010
Pachaurigate
- Pachaurigate → Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (links to redirect • history • stats)
Does not have any relationship to target article. Pointy. Scjessey (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Unrelated, irrelevant, and probably created to make a point (see first edit summary), Lord Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect to another more relevant location as Rajendra K. Pachauri. It's sourced (Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri, After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate). Nsaa (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. It's a non-notable neologism being pushed by a climate change skeptic, with virtually no coverage in reliable sources. It's not even in that first source you listed. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- So what? This is a redirect. The journalist and blogger James Delingpole had over millions of reader just in December 2009.(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100021052/happy-new-year-from-telegraph-blogs/ "James Delingpole (whose Climategate posts attracted millions of page views in one week alone)") If someone of this people search for Pachaurigate isn't it good that they hit the correct article at Wikipedia? Nsaa (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- No. It's a non-notable neologism being pushed by a climate change skeptic, with virtually no coverage in reliable sources. It's not even in that first source you listed. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - agree with the points above. Thepm (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Reconsider after my post above? This is just a redirect, and it's sourced in one of the most popular Newspaper blogs in the UK. It can even be seen as a WP:RS per this policy "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.". Delingpoles Telegraph blog is such a kind of blog (this is the third time I mention this for the proposer …). Nsaa (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Ridiculous. Delingpole is a fully-fledged denier of science, and cannot be considered a reliable source on anything other than the skeptical nonsense he spouts. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, my view remains that it should be deleted. It seems a little mischievous to me. If it does stay, it certainly shouldn't redirect to Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, it should probably redirect to Pachauri's Bio.Thepm (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Reconsider after my post above? This is just a redirect, and it's sourced in one of the most popular Newspaper blogs in the UK. It can even be seen as a WP:RS per this policy "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.". Delingpoles Telegraph blog is such a kind of blog (this is the third time I mention this for the proposer …). Nsaa (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete This is getting silly. How many more ridiculous '-gate' redirects are there? SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete I haven't seen this referred to anywhere else - the glaciergate term has been far more widespreadly used. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Amazongate
- Amazongate → Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (links to redirect • history • stats)
Does not have any relationship to target article. Scjessey (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
*Comment - Sounds like a pun on Watergate. Judging by the google hits, it's quite common (along with glaciergate, climategate) but it's generally referring to climate change or something. I'm not sure yet... Lord Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom, Lord Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect to another more relevant location as IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report. It's sourced (Amazongate: new evidence of the IPCC's failures, After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate), but I agree that this should probably redirect directly to IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report where the wrongdoings have been done. Nsaa (talk) 23:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect - this was a (presumably?) invented word in response to reported errors in AR4. It seems to now be fairly widely used (google seems to think it's got 52000 hits for what that's worth). Agree that it should probably redirect to IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report. Thepm (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mostly blogs from the climate skeptic echo chamber. Few news hits, and those that exist are reprints of the original opinion pieces from the skeptics. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- So what? This is a redirect. The journalist and blogger James Delingpole had over millions of reader just in December 2009.(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100021052/happy-new-year-from-telegraph-blogs/ "James Delingpole (whose Climategate posts attracted millions of page views in one week alone)") If someone of this people search for Amazongate isn't it good that they hit the correct article at Wikipedia? Nsaa (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Mostly blogs from the climate skeptic echo chamber. Few news hits, and those that exist are reprints of the original opinion pieces from the skeptics. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Make into its own article. The article does not have to be called "Amazongate," although "Amazongate" should redirect to the article. The term "Amazongate" has been mentioned by the BBC, The Telegraph, and The Times of India. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Comment Why haven't you nominated for deletion other articles about bogus scence claims, such as Creationism, Flat Earth, Homeopathy, Astrology, and Numerology? Just because the science is bogus doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - Per nom. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 02:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Glaciergate
- Glaciergate → Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (links to redirect • history • stats)
This redirect should be deleted. The term has no relationship with the target article (it refers to something else) and it was obviously created to make a point. Scjessey (talk) 15:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - First edit summary includes a link to this. Has no relationship to target and seems to be something about climate change. It looks like it's reffering to a specific incident. I don't think there's an article on it. I'm not 100% sure... Lord Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect to another more relevant location as IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report. It's sourced Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal, Glaciergate was a blunder, but it's the sceptics who dissemble Glaciergate threatens a climate change, After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate: Amazongate), but I agree that this should probably redirect directly to IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report where the wrongdoings have been done. Nsaa (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Make into its own article, as this science topic has been covered by Time magazine, The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, and Discover magazine. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I agree with grundle I considered writing up the article myself, there is actually a surprising amount of well-sourced material out there and it would fall in line with similar articles like the hockey stick controversy. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Redirect agree with [[User:Nsaa|Nsaa] above. I don't think it warrants an article of its own. It gets a mention in the AR4 articleThepm (talk) 10:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete completely unrelated. SPLETTE :] How's my driving? 02:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Plymouth Suburban
This template must be substituted.
- 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.
</includeonly><noinclude>
- Plymouth Suburban → Plymouth Fury (links to redirect • history • stats)
There is a complaint at Ticket:2010012810039261 that, to put it in our terms, the article about the redirect target Plymouth Fury has nothing to do with the apparently different car "Plymouth Suburban". Since the target article does not seem to discuss the "Plymouth Suburban" at all, I recommend that the redirect be deleted. Of course, I know nothing about cars, so this could be completely wrong. Sandstein 14:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- This should be an actual article for the vehicle Plymouth produced from 1949 to 1978. It was one of the first all steel framed station wagons produced, leadng to the demise of the true woodies. It does seem that there were Plymouth Fury Suburban station wagons produced from 1968 until 1978, making this a valid redirect. I can't think of a better target, so this should probably stay. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 17:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I have created a stub, and used {{distinguish}} at the top to prevent further confusion. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think we can close this now, then. Sandstein 07:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. I have created a stub, and used {{distinguish}} at the top to prevent further confusion. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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). This template must be substituted.
"Attention seekers"
This template must be substituted.
- 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.
</includeonly><noinclude>
- "Attention seekers" → Attention seeking (links to redirect • history • stats)
- "Attention seeker" → Attention seeking (links to redirect • history • stats)
- "Attention-seekers" → Attention seeking (links to redirect • history • stats)
- "Attention-seeker" → Attention seeking (links to redirect • history • stats)
These are simple blunders. I unintentionally set up these redirect pages to mistakenly include quotes in their name. I have now set up correct redirects without quotes so this is an entirely non-controversial delete. Penbat (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Speedy delete - If they are unintentional creations, and uncontroversial, they qualify for WP:G6. Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 12:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Note, I have tagged all four with {{rfd}} tags, and have nominated all four for speedy deletion under db-g7, creator requests deletion. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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). This template must be substituted.