Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 21[edit]

Diabeetis → Wilford Brimley[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G10. —Dgiest c 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially is an unecessarily disparaging redirect. (→Netscott) 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Diabeetus → Wilford Brimley[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G10. —Dgiest c 22:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially is an unecessarily disparaging redirect. (→Netscott) 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WP:CIVAL → Wikipedia:Civility[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. No consensus and doesn't conflict with anything. -- JLaTondre 23:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is meaningless. I cannot think of a reason why the redirect was created at the beginning. Delete. PeaceNT 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Appears to be a mispelling of "CIVIL." bibliomaniac15 18:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a surprisingly common misspelling. Rossami (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just cast a glance at Special:Whatlinkshere/WP:CIVAL and you may find that the creator is the only one to make use of this redirect. If we don't count this RfD, WP:CIVAL has been linked to only 3 times on talk pages since its creation in December 2006, which somehow means that this misspelling is not so common. Just my thought. PeaceNT 06:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Whatlinkshere" is, unfortunately, not a reliable gauge of the commonness of this misspelling. When I reviewed this, there were significantly more links than there are now. The usage then did trace back to one person but it was not the creator of the redirect. (I'm sorry, I don't remember who it was but I do remember that the username was short - much shorter than Power level (Dragon Ball).) Since it's primarily used on Talk pages and used at a time of high emotion, it would not surprise me if the recipients were archiving or deleting the comment including the link. It also would not surprise me if some people are corrected the typo by hand when they add a subsequent comment to the user's page.
        A google search on "cival" may be more useful in estimating how common this mistake is. Those search results return just under 500,000 hits. The top hits were references to Cival, the Mayan archaeological site but the majority of hits were uses of "cival" as a clear misspelling of "civil" (often in the context of a "civil war"). Rossami (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mispelled shortctus a'rent useflu. >Radiant< 11:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep actually, I have to agree eith Rossami. I often misspell it to "cival" myself and hate going back to correct the redirect, hence, I leave it as it is. Doesn't do any harm to have a misspelled redirect every once in a while as long as it isn't nonsensical. Another common misspelled redirect would be masterbation. Is there any reason to delete that as well? Power level (Dragon Ball) 07:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Matthew schellhorn → Matthew Schellhorn[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 02:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong capitalization. HFJ 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it is the wrong capitalisation and why does it have an equal sign at the beginning.TellyaddictEditor review! 14:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We always keep lowcase redirects. And the equal sign was just a typo in the nom. --- RockMFR 15:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Probable search term, capitalization redirects are good. —Dgiest c 06:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nothing wrong with capitalsiation redirects. WjBscribe 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Surely superfluous. Otherwise every single entry should have one, no?. HFJ 00:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-delete as a self-corrected user mistake. The redirect was created as the result of a pagemove by the original author on the day the page was created. HFJ, in the future, simply tag the page with {{db-author}} and it will be cleaned up in a few hours. Rossami (talk) 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice Rossami!HFJ 13:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fleiss, Joseph L. → Joseph L. Fleiss[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan article was created using "Lastname, firstname." I moved the article and have linked other articles to it. It is unlikely that anybody will look for the article using "Lastname, firstname," which runs counter to Wiki naming policy. The only page that links to Fleiss, Joseph L. is User:W.marsh/orphan articles/D-G. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 07:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlikely search term. --Rbraunwa 15:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. PeaceNT 08:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. The page appears to have been created as an autobiography and has never been challenged or significantly edited. The redirect was created as the result of a pagemove but that happened well after the article's creation. Keep the redirect for as long as the destination article is kept. I'll think separately about whether the target page meets our inclusion criteria. Rossami (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correction. It couldn't have been an autobiography since the page was created after the subject died. It does appear, however, to have been created by a single-purpose account and I can't help but suspect a family member. Still considering... Rossami (talk)
      • As I wrote on the Talk page, I think Dr. Fleiss's son created the article. It has been significantly edited (by yours truly), references have been added, and other relevant articles that mentioned Fleiss have been Wikilinked to it. Fleiss was well-known within his field. If his notability is in question, please let me know and I will provide additional sources to establish it. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 19:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_21&oldid=1146554454"