Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 5, 2008

TheEnvironmentalist → Andrew Tait[edit]

The result of the debate was Re-targeted to The Environmentalist as a possible typo. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is the name under which the target article was created two days ago. I moved the page to the more appropriate title Andrew Tait. Although I am not asking for a deletion of this redirect, I can think of many much more appropriate targets.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete malformed title (it should be "The Environmentalist" with a space). There is already a standalone article with the appropriately-formatted name. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that's where this redirect should be retargeted? -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've suggested that it be deleted, not retargeted. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Reverse funnel system → Pyramid scheme[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete and salt, per unanimous consensus including RfD nominator. Cirt (talk) 22:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After an AfD, the article was deleted for non-notability and replaced by a redirect. Everybody involved, including me, agrees that it is a pyramid scheme. However, I don't think a redirect is appropriate here, since the term is not mentioned on the target page and the reader is left in confusion about how the term he typed in the search box relates to the page he ended up with. I was one of those confused readers once.

Pyramid schemes are controversial, since the ones participating usually don't believe it is one. A redirect such as this one is essentially a POV of the one who placed the redirect. If there are no notable publications that assert that the scheme is a pyramid scheme, then there is also no support for this POV or mentioning the term at all on Wikipedia. Han-Kwang (t) 07:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is more or less what I have been saying from the get-go, yet at the same time I think that this may help discourage a re-create. I have to agree, it does seem an obvious pyramid scheme, (gee, what would a "reverse funnel" resemble?) but without sources to support that, we are engaging in WP:OR and or violating WP:NPOV, but, if I could link to just one more bit of alphabet soup, I think we should WP:IAR and leave it as a redirect. Failing that, it should be create protected so that it is not re-created without sources again. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it was a redirect in the past and when I ended up in the pyramid scheme article, I suspected that the content was there in an older version (it was, although not at time of creating the article) and moved that old content to replace the redirect with the AfD as a result. Which shows that (a) the redirect invites people to add content to the target article and (b) the redirect invites people (me) to expand the redirecting article, both of which are apparently undesirable. I didn't notice before that RFS was already deleted many times[1], so I support salting now. Han-Kwang (t) 08:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to admit after thinking this over that Hankwang (talk · contribs) and Beeblebrox (talk · contribs) make good points here. If there is consensus I will delete the redirect and then create-protect it. Cirt (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me as well. Please salt both capitalizations: Reverse funnel system and Reverse Funnel System, as despite the redirect in question being on the lowercase, the scheme is usually capitalized and is likely to reappear that way. Reswobslc (talk) 04:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tropical Storm Norbert (2008) → 2008 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. Redirect can be converted to an article without deletion. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remouns Norbert article Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:WPTC consensus about articles on non-impact EPac storms, this article should not exist at this time. — jdorje (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does "remouns" mean? I don't understand what Yellow Evan is saying. Plasticup T/C 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is a redirect, so technically not an article. If someone is to look for the "N" storm of 2008, there you go. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article is trying to be created.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 03:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus to not have an article at the moment. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We he gets back he will see a big surprise.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the new Norbert article.Leave Message orYellow Evan home 16:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If it is determined this storm is significant enough to have an article, the article can be created. There's no need to delete the redirect first. --UsaSatsui (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion not necessary per UsaSatsui: The only discussion is whether an article needs to be created. That's a discussion best handled on one of the tropical-cyclone discussion pages, not here. If someone jumps the gun and creates an article before it meets the criteria agreed upon by the editors of tropical cyclone article editors, well, that's what WP:MERGE discussions are for. Recommend speedy close of this RfD by an un-involved editor as wrong venue for discussion and/or discussion not required at this time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ammended If there is a draft of a suitable article in user-space, and this redirect has no history other than a redirect but for whatever reason move-over-redirect fails, it can be speedy-deleted under category G6 to make way for a move so the history of the draft can be preserved. Again, no discussion is required so this RfD can be closed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

As of October 2008 → October 2008[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. --Allen3 talk 20:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the usefulness of this redirect. Not an obvious delete, but it should be discussed nevertheless.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The usefulness is in categorizing dated statements in a way that they can be checked, but these pages are deprecated by use of the special {{as of}} template. The redirect isn't necessary.--chaser - t 06:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unlikely search term CTJF83Talk 06:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a better way of tracking dated statements, see Wikipedia:As of. All "As of..." redirects should be deleted eventually. GregorB (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This should not have been created, it is deprecated per WP:As of and encourages use of an outdated system. I will notify the creator of this. See also as of September 2008 which was speedy deleted (G6) by Chaser on the same grounds. Further "as of" pages should be speedy deleted as housekeeping – Ikara talk → 23:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have removed all links to the redirect from the article namespace, and have notified the creator of the redirect. The redirect could now be speedy deleted per CSD G6 if no one has any objections – Ikara talk → 23:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with above editors. I didn't aware of the guideline Wikipedia:As of when I create this redirect.—Chris! ct 00:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Create artcile → Farigo The International Club for Adventure and Appreciation[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted by FreplySpang as Housekeeping (G6). -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to ever be used ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy deleted as housekeeping, note that the person requesting deletion here is the sole author. FreplySpang 00:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I was not the original author, the page was moved by me earlier. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 01:07, 5 October 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_October_5&oldid=1144713000"