Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 20

January 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 20, 2009

Redirects to Genie (feral child)

This is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for two redirects. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete and salt". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

What can I do with the letter C? → C

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also:

Alphabet: Lesson: Letter C

Wordy search terms for alphabet articles, unlikely to be used. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both are leftovers from merges done in 2006. Today we would delete those articles instead of redirecting. History is just a HOWTO guide with no salvageable encyclopedic content. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unlikely terms. PaulJones (talk) 13:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do we do with these redirects involving the letter "C"? We delete them, of course. The lessons are long gone and the name of the second redirect, with both of its colons, seem not only an unlikely search item but also potentially confusing. Any one colon variants of the latter should be similarly deleted. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

NnN → N

The result of the discussion was withdrawn - Retargeted to NNN (I swear that article wasn't there when I nominated this...) Richard ⁰⁶¹² 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term/link target, we could have hundreds of such redirects if this pattern was continued (Aaa, aAa, etc.) Richard ⁰⁶¹² 21:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to NNN, an appropriate disambiguation page for the triple letter. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Various 'backwards foo' redirects → Various alphabet articles

The result of the discussion was delete all--Aervanath (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backwards d → B
Backwards D → B
Backwards b → D
Backwards B → D
Backwards q → P
Backwards Q → P
Backwards p → Q
Backwards P → Q

All are unlikely search terms or link targets. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not to mention most of those are just plain wrong. Q doesn't look at all like P backwards, B and D are also entirely different backwards. Who thought of this? 194.144.87.74 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the creator has a point when the letters in question are in lower case ("b" vs. "d", "p" vs. "q"), but this seems more like trivia rather than using the similarities as search items. Assuming good faith, this could be the result of a few observations on the part of someone whose primary language does not involve Roman lettering or a discussion with someone who is learning the alphabet... but then again, this is pure speculation. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no possible use for these redirects. Why would someone be searching for 'backwards d' in the first place? Terraxos (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Devil Has Been Here → 2006 Chávez speech at the United Nations

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete, this is a leftover from an undiscussed move, see Talk:2006_Chávez_speech_at_the_United_Nations#Article's_title. JRSP (talk) 16:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bunch of redirect contestants to individual cycles of America's Next Top Model

The result of the discussion was withdrawn--Aervanath (talk) 09:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. With the exception of Rebecca Epley, Michelle Deighton, Nik Pace, Megan Morris, Megg Morales, Anchal Joseph, Samantha Francis, Brittany Hatch, Lisa Jackson, Bianca Golden, Claire Unabia and Katarzyna Dolinska. Non-notable contestants recreated pages per previous AFDs (Cycles 1-7). ApprenticeFan (talk) 15:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close then break the discussion into to smaller, more manageable chunks. This is well too large to be considered en masse as it will involve determinations of redirects to dozens of individuals. Some of these people may well creep by WP:BIO, but in this lot, one cannot tell at a glance. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply it can not close this discussion. These people are failing to meet notability requirements. ApprenticeFan (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How many of these have you researched to make sure that your assertion is true for each and every one of them? How many of the 77? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Whilst these people are clearly not notable enough for their own article (and AfD was correct to delete them), redirects are cheap and the season articles they direct to all mention the people by name. These are entirely plausible search terms and the redirects make them much easier to find. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 17:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ryan Postlethwaite. Not being notable would be a reason for deleting an article, but since when has it been a reason to delete a redirect? Seems like it's more of a reason to create a redirect.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the following, anyway, because of previous AFD consensus. Consensus was "delete" not "redirect". There generally seems to be a strong consensus to delete when these are listed individually at AfD:

As for the rest, many of them were changed to redirects because of this trainwreck AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caridee English, and never had their own AfDs, but I still say delete them, because there seems to be a generally strong consensus to delete when each contestant has her own AfD. I also think the ones that were just created as redirects should be (you guessed it) deleted. I just don't think these are likely search terms. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they're plausible search terms - if someone has an interest in a particular participant they'll search for them rather than the program itself. As it happens, the whole reason why I created these redirects was because when I search for one of them, nothing came up from WP. At that point, I didn't even know about individual seasons articles. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nicole Panattoni is redirected to Deal or No Deal (US) models. ApprenticeFan (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Dawn Bard --Rumping (talk) 19:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, as all the names are including in the appropriate targets. This has the making of a train wreck (should have been broken up by season so it would be easier to people to check the validity of each of these more closely), but in this case, the appearance in the target is sufficient to comply with WP:RFD#KEEP. B.Wind (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment retargeted the following:

Melrose Bikerstaff → Mel Rose

Victoria Marshman → America's Next Top Model, Cycle 9

Withdrawn all of the redirects are targeted in the articles. ApprenticeFan (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Renee Roberts (actor) → Renee Roberts

The result of the discussion was Keep. (non-admin closure) Mastrchf (^t/_c) 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for R3 but exists since 2006 and thus fails R3 but has no use as a search term. So Why 12:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two "Renee Roberts". One is an actor and is at Renee Roberts and the other is a fictional character at Renee Roberts (Coronation Street). There's no point for this redirect. Dismas|^(talk) 13:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Redirects aren't there just for search engine. Providing an explicitly disambiguated redirect means that one can find the target without having to remember which topic is at the short name; it also provides the opportunity to explicitly link through the redirect for clarity. That's the point of such redirects. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gavia immer. The name of the redirect can also be prompted by asking oneself: Which Renee Roberts am I researching? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Gavia immer. PaulJones (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life → The Truth That Leads To Eternal Life

The result of the discussion was CSD G6 by User:Jeffro77 (non admin close) Jeffro77 (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is in the way of the correct capitalization of the book as published Jeffro77 (talk) 12:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move as suggested. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Prepositions should never be capitalized even if that's how the book spells them. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The contentious capitalization is with the word 'That', which is not a preposition. The correct article name should be 'The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life', and this redirect is in the way of that correct title. The intended new title (with 'To') is to redirect the incorrect capitalization to the correct article once this redirect is out of the way..--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can tag it with a G6 then if it's in the way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Gone, apparently to make way for the proposed move. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mutli-platform → Cross-platform

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was a misspelling that only occurred on the BBC Red Button page, but I fixed it there. Is this a common misspelling of Multi-platform or should it be deleted? Cheezycrust (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a feasible misspelling, and after all, redirects are cheap. Usrnme h8er (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a plausible typing error. PaulJones (talk) 11:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Canadastanian → Maple syrup

The result of the discussion was CSD G3 by User:Orangemike (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Makes no sense; delete or redirect to Canada. NJGW (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonsense redirect. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Gone. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Dick → Meta:Don't be a dick

The result of the discussion was snowball keep. There is no way that there will be consensus to delete this redirect. So Why 15:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dick violates policy. WP:CIVIL prohibits name calling and profanity (WP:PROFANE) such as this. WP:NPA prohibits personal attacks such as this. WP:TONE calls for material suitable for an encyclopedia. WP:NOTCENSORED allows objectionable material ONLY when it is related to the content of the article: it is not needed and is not relavent. It is a Shock Site which does not belong in Wikipedia. Please delete. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is a serious nomination, but just in case, let's examine your arguments... you want the redirect deleted on WP:CIVILITY grounds? The meta article about not being a dick promotes civility (whether it does so effectively is another question) and explicitly discourages "name calling". WP:NPA? IEnjoining the editorial community not to behave like "dicks" is far from a personal attack. It's a completely impersonal plea/reminder. WP:TONE and WP:NOTCENSORED are policies that primarily govern article space and don't really apply here. If you find the essay on meta to be excessively coarse, go over to meta and nominate its deletion or, better yet, write a more family-friendly version expressing the same sentiments.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this redirect is not intended to be an insult. It has legitimate usage as redirect to the meta page and as the sentence "don't be a dick", which is a legit comment when someone is, well, behaving like a dick. Also, as The Fat Man says, it links to an essaypromoting civility. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since this is a RfD I'm going to assume the objection is towards WP:DICK itself, not Meta:Don't be a dick. I can only surmise that you don't like the redirect name. That doesn't make it any more of an attack than WP:FUCK or WP:ASS. If on the other hand the redirect was called John Q. Doe is a dick and redirected to Penis - you would have a point. Remember, sticks and stones can break my bones but words will hurt forever. Or something. Usrnme h8er (talk) 10:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As far as I can see, this is an established soft redirect which points people towards some good advice. I don't see why there should be a problem – unless someone uses the link in a manner designed to provoke, but that's more an issue of individual editor conduct than anything inherently wrong with the redirect. – The Parting Glass 10:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep soft redirect with plenty of history behind it, its use, and the essay/guideline that used to be there. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep so long as the essay exists (and it's not likely to be deleted). There's a substantial history behind this redirect, and deleting this will not stop people from linking to the essay, nor even from using a piped link to do so. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is one of the basic guidelines of Wikipedia (and, to be honest, of life). There's a lot of history here. None of the nom's concerns are even true (it's certainly not a "shock site"). In addition, the concern seems to be not about the redirect, but the page (which I'm not sure we at Wikipedia have any control over anymore)...I don't see anything wrong with the redirect itself. --UsaSatsui (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suprise sex → Rape

The result of the discussion was Delete as per VFD and protection we wouldn't even have this redirect with the right spelling. Tikiwont (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No need to give any legitimacy to this marginally amusing 4chan-style vulgarism (which is misspelled, in any case). Note that the correctly spelled Surprise sex redirect has been deleted many times. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No encyclopedic use for a non-notable joke. Just one more non-notable euphemism for rape, see [1]. Apart from that, no relevant hits on google scholar or google books, all the hits are false positives like "This should not come as a surprise - sex here is not" or "To our surprise sex did not seem to moderate the effects of including". --Enric Naval (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nagaland_state_assembly_elections,_2008 → Nagaland_Legislative_Assembly_election,_2008

The result of the discussion was CSD G8 by User:Sgeureka (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I nominate this for deletion due to a redirect to a non-existing article, and nothing to redirect it to. Demortes (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged for speedy deletion, G8. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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