Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 31

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 31, 2009

Curse of 1969

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article already nominated for deletion on Dec 13, 2008 [1], neither its current target nor an earlier target (Sports-related curses) make reference to it Me Three (talk to me) 13:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

'septu@dZInt

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

'nunu 'aɫvɐɾɨʃ pɨ'ɾɐjɾɐ

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPA pronunciation is not a valid redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with all these as well as virtually any IPA representation and wonder if we can treat this is a class action without having to include every instance explicitly. By sheer coincidence I came across one such article, ʁɛˈpublikɐ dɐ giˈnɛ biˈsau → Guinea-Bissau (not listed above), an hour and a half after this Rfd was posted, and discovered that User:Joseph_Solis_in_Australia had created a bunch of them. I started putting db-r3 on some until I realized that db-r3 requires recent creation and also discovered this Rfd, so I've reverted those. I think it would be unusual for anyone to try to look up information using IPA renderings, especially given that no one would expect articles to be findable this way, and that expectation is realistic given that almost no article is. This argument is a bit circular, but there you are. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that an IPA representation isn't helpful anyway unless the person looking up the word has the same pronunciation for it, the same accent, as was assumed by the person creating the redirect. —Largo Plazo (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. Implausible, if not impossible, to type. Me Three (talk to me) 17:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - What would possess someone to type IPA pronunciations when searching for something. Unless...are there keyboards using solely IPA characters? In that case it...no, no, ignore that, that's ridiculous. Delete, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per all above. Completely useless redirects. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dɪ'liːt as per all above, and that redirects from non-English alphabets should be used with care (even from other Latin alphabets with diacritics), and not mindlessly applied to any article one fancies. While I can see that it might be useful, for example, to redirect the names of Russian or Georgian or Serbian places from their equivalents in the Cyrillic alphabet, I can't see that it would be useful to redirect the names of Chinese foodstuffs in the Arabic alphabet, or whatever. It is a short step from that to becoming a (poor quality) translating dictionary. Si Trew (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - anyone feel like attempting to writing ʁepʊ'bliːk ˌøːstə'ʁaɪç rather than Austria? Nope, didn't think so... --Jubilee♫clipman 19:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

'erbal essence

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:09, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

'fish out of wate

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo + needless apostrophe. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

'Zig'

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target article + needless apostrophes. Not worth retargeting because of apostrophes. — The Man in Question (in question) 11:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

'The Well' created by Melvin Burgess

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

'The Web'

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No mention in target article. Use of apostrophes makes it unworthy of retargeting. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

'The Great White Hope'.

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With apostrophes and period, implausible. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

'The Godfather 1901-1959: The Complete Epic''

[edit]
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Shubinator (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. The final two characters are two apostrophes, not a quotation mark. As can be seen above, it is not even possible to link without special syntax. — The Man in Question (in question) 10:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

'One'

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One is far too broad a word to redirect to National Express East Anglia, and with the inclusion of apostrophes it is not worth retargeting to 1 (number) or One (disambiguation). — The Man in Question (in question) 09:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

'New Year's Day' observed

[edit]
The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible + needless apostrophes. — The Man in Question (in question) 09:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Division of Thai music

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created due to improper naming of an article, which was moved to Division of Thai Music, Department of Fine and Applied Arts, Faculty of Humanities, Naresuan University then deleted due to CSD A7 and redirected to Naresuan University. This redirect was subsequently re-redirected to Naresuan University due to the double redirect, but serves no navigational aid and is confusing, and so should be deleted. Paul_012 (talk) 08:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

J. Invest. Dermatol.

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely misleading redirect for the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, which is published by the Nature Publishing Group. A redirect to the published (which was probably intended) doesn't make sense either, as the NPG publishes several journals. Delete for now. Recreate and target to Journal of Investigative Dermatology when that article isn't a redlink anymore. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 07:49, 31 December 2009 (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/2009_December_31&oldid=1140112174"