< November 24
November 26 >

November 25

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 25, 2013.

Wikipedia:Hotties are always notable

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) 17:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to let this go out of the Wikipedia: namespace. Having it in GC's userspace, given his contributions and the fact that the essay is positively ancient, is (imho) no big deal. But the Wikipedia namespace redirect implies a project endorsement, and I think the project culture has moved past this sort of thing - for better and for worse. Nathan T 01:09, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's not a reason to delete these redirects in particular. If you think we shouldn't have WP redirects to non-project space, start a combination RFC/RFD on WP redirects to non-project space. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Making a page harder to find is not a legitimate reason to delete a redirect. If we shouldn't have a page, we delete it. If we don't delete it, there's no legitimate reason to harder to find. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Secondly, even if this redirect were a serous endorsement the userpage, this page is is clearly satire. It doesn't promote judging people by their physical appearance, it ridicules the notion that people should be judged by their their physical appearance. As for the sexiest and jingoism arguments, what does this have to do with gender? Jugging people by their physical appearance is wrong regardless of the victim's gender.
The term "smokin' hot" is gender-neutral (who says that men can't be smokin' hot). Straight woman find smokin' hot men to be, well, smokin' hot, just like straight men find smokin' hot women to be smokin' hot. If the essay is jingoistic, it is euqely jingoistic against both men and women (with the partial exemption of the "General notability guideline" section). That someone would assume that the term "smokin' hot" automatically refers to a women, or think that it's only women who are judged by their physical appearance, says more about their own sexism than the author's.
The only thing I see that even hints of sexism is the "General notability guideline" section's use of only female examples, but it's probably just that the writer is a lesbian or straight male, no need to assume sexism. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is not so much that it's sexist than that it promotes the idea that a person's worth is based on his or her appearance. That can be off-putting, or even downright repellent, to people who are sensitive to the way society handles such issues. Sadly, it is women who are most affected on that count, and thus women we are most likely to be driving away by the promotion of this essay. That makes it a gender gap issue. Powers T 15:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's kind of my point; the notion that a person's worth is based on his or her appearance ought to be ridiculed to death. If the redirects are not a serious endorsement, then there is no reason to delete them. If the redirects are a serious endorsement, then deleting a redirect to satire that ridicules that notion only says that we support judging a person's worth by his or her appearance. There's a difference between idiots who judge a person's worth by his or her appearance, and people who point out how idiotic that is with satire. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: It is not clear from the above that every commenter is commenting on all the mentioned redirects, particularly as only the first was explicitly listed and some mentioned were not even tagged (which I will correct).
Note also that comments regarding anything other than the redirects to the essay are not relevant here and will not be considered by whomever closes this discussion. If anyone feels the content of the essay is inappropriate they should discuss in on its talk page or nominate it at Wikipedia:Miscellany for discussion. This discussion is only to determine whether the redirects Wikipedia:Hotties are always notable, Wikipedia:Notability (hotness), Wikipedia:FUGLY and/or Wikipedia:HOTTIE should be kept as redirects to the essay, retargetted elsewhere or deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.

Ariel (Once Upon a Time in Wonderland)

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 delete as G7. --BDD (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought this episode was part of the spin-off series "Once Upon a Time in Wonderland", which is not the case. A separate article has been created: Ariel (Once Upon a Time). Please delete the incorrect version. Another Believer (Talk) 16:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.

Dark Hollow (Once Upon a Time in Wonderland)

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 delete as G7. --BDD (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought this episode was part of the spin-off series "Once Upon a Time in Wonderland", which is not the case. The separate article has been created accordingly (Dark Hollow (Once Upon a Time)). Another Believer (Talk) 16:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Another Believer: you can tag them, and they will have no bearing in these discussions. If you tag them, worse case scenario is that the speedy deletion requests will get denied, and these discussions will continue. If they get speedy deleted, an administrator or another editor will realize that they are deleted, and close these discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 22:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[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:WPArticle

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) 17:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete. These are outdated redirects to Template:Lw that had the exact same function as Template:Lw before becoming redirects. Also, these two redirects have no transclusions. Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: note that these templates were made into redirects only approximately 15 minutes before the nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[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 Soundtrack

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 Soundtrack. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 20:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This redirect was apparently based on the fact that an early (pre-production) project name for the recording discussed at the target article was "The Soundtrack." However, the album was released in 2011 under the name "The Taking" and only one published source has ever mentioned the pre-production name. This seems a pretty flimsy reason to maintain a redirect from such a generic phrase, especially two years after the project's official release. Dwpaul Talk 19:11, 15 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[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.

Mexico State.

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 3#Mexico State.

More