Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 8, 2008

Transferring between Waldorf and non-Waldorf schools → Waldorf education

The result of the debate was Merged history with Waldorf education. Dreadstar † 19:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links through this redirect (or is likely ever to); can be deleted Hgilbert (talk) 12:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to this AFD, content was supposed to be merged from this page to the target page. The Talk page makes it unclear whether the merger finally took place but it was far enough back in history that I don't know how we could prove or disprove it now. Since a history-merger seems inappropriate here, I have to recommend keep to ensure our compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL. Rossami (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pedobear → 4chan#/b

The result of the debate was Delete and salt, per WP:V. Dreadstar † 19:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect that keeps on living its own life; all attempts of actually explaining what Pedobear actually is the main article, 4chan, are constantly deleted. Either the redirect is deleted and stays deleted, or the meme should be at least mentioned in the 4chan article. We can't both keep the redirect (to a specific heading, no less) and delete any mention of it in article space. Peter Isotalo 10:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep...again. The protected redirect is there for a reason, regardless of whether or not it gets a mention in the article (it should). We just went over this a month and a half ago, too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The arguments for keeping were as flawed a few weeks ago as they are now. Like other memes, this is not dependant on 4chan and should therefore not be some quirky appendix of it. It seems to serve no other valid purpose except to confirm a conflict between a specific article and general policy. Peter Isotalo 13:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no reliable sources that mention the bear in relation to 4chan, hence it's not mentioned in the article. Delete the redirect. —Giggy 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since this goes to some 4chan article with no explanation. I know nothing about pedobear or 4chan, and I was trying to get a clue what this character was and I got more info from the Pedobear/Edit History than from the redirect. Either delete the redirect or put a single sentence in the 4chan article to provide context. Also "keeping" violates the rule where a redirect is harmful if the article "contain[s] nontrivial edit history". -Rolypolyman (talk) 20:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No explanation given as to why it shouldn't receive a mention at 4chan. Several were of the opinion of merging pedobear into 4chan at the pedobear AFD: [1]. —Tokek (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no consensus for including Pedobear in the 4chan article and those opposing it have WP:V on their side to support their stance. As long that situations persists, this redirect can only serve to confuse. Peter Isotalo 05:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, unless some mention of the term is added to the 4chan page. At the moment, it's of very little use as a redirect. Terraxos (talk) 03:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to help prevent article creation. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can't deleted articles be protected as well? Peter Isotalo 14:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep again and restore the acceptable version (please browse the history yourself before and after that point, if you suspect I am defending it under POV) as an article instead of a redirect. The only reason this redirect is confusing is precisely because it is a redirect, and the 4chan article doesn't mention the subject (and that makes sense, afterall there are tons of memes originating in 4chan). Waldir talk 01:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Waldir but, if you dont agree with giving him his own page for whatever reason at least put something about him in the 4chan article considering how he is a big part of the board. --NefariousOpus 07:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since this appears to be turning into a decision to keep, should this also count as a consensus dectision that Pedobear can be mentioned in the article, with or without a reliable source? Peter Isotalo 18:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There should be a mention of the meme. More than that, though, probably not without sourcing. --UsaSatsui (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Greg Kihn Band (band) → The Greg Kihn Band

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless Universal CerealBus ♫♪ 09:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep redundancy does not equal uselessness. JuJube (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it helps document the pagemove. Redirects are automatically created when moving pages for several very good reasons. Rossami (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's a little redundant (and thus would usually move me to !vote delete), but it's there because of the pagemove so it should be kept. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 03:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was moved? Ok. Withdraw my RFD. Universal CerealBus ♫♪ 15:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

George Bush incompetence allegations → Criticism of George W. Bush

The result of the debate was Deleted by Orangemike by author's request (db-author). -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive, useless, and could cause confusion. This redirect was created on August 6, by User:Kelly immediately after User:CIreland commented that such an article didn't exist in a rather heated debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations. I'd never assume bad faith and speculate that Kelly was making a WP:POINT, and am sure she had nothing but the best intentions. The fact remains, however, that it's offensive, useless (since there have been allegations of incompetence made against half the people—and almost all of the politicians—that we have articles on, surely we can't make a redirect for each one), and could cause confusion, since there a number of rather memorable George Bushes that allegations of incompetence have been made about. GRuban (talk) 14:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't notified about this discussion, I happened to notice a mention of it elsewhere. I've flagged the redirect for deletion with {{db-author}}, which I would happily have done earlier had anyone expressed concern to me. Also, I would not characterize the debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Edwards paternity allegations as heated, it seems perfectly reasonable to me. Kelly hi! 15:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's agree to "lengthy", then? :-) With your agreement, I see it's gone now. Thanks! --GRuban (talk) 15:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_8&oldid=1138575165"