Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 21, 2009

Wikisloth[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete as an inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. ~ mazca talk 13:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect; I don't know how likely it is for a non-Wikipedian to search anyway, but on the off chance that someone does we probably don't want them accidentally stumbling into project space and thinking they're in an article. I imagine WP:WikiSloth is pretty easy to find without a redirect, anyway.. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 19:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unnecessary and confusing. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 00:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects from main space to other spaces are evil.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think it is essential to maintain an unambiguous distinction between encyclopedia articles and the background pages used in the process of editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; it's a cross-namespace redirect with no compelling reason to justify its existence. TJRC (talk) 23:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Winbledom villaje[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A pointless redirect. The misspelling "Winbledom" is possible but not particularly likely, "villaje" very improbable, the two together so improbable as to make the redirect pointless. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - very unlikely typo combination. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleet How many mispellings ken wii reason a bally ex-pecked in won article tittle? Alansohn (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as entirely implausible. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a plausible typo. TJRC (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kat Doll[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete, a potentially reasonable search term. ~ mazca talk 13:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect, it was redirected to Katarzyna Dolinska article before merged it back to America's Next Top Model, Cycle 10 article. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep commonly used nickname (possibly including professionally used by subject) that leads to an article with some information about her. I added her nickname to the blurb in the destination article for clarity--ThaddeusB (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Not so harrrrd![edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, the consensus here seems to hold that Category:Catchphrases is not a good enough reason to keep the redirect; and that it is otherwise a very obscure search term. ~ mazca talk 13:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect with made-up spelling Drawn Some (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the phrase is drawn right from the text of the article and is indexed in Category:Catchphrases for those searching by the phrase, while spelling may vary, it is obvious from the category, and of course autocomplete finishes the phrase for you. I want to thank my wikistalker for bringing this up. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful" It's only in Category:Catchphrases because the redirect creator put it there. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TJRC, and that the exact number of repeated characters doesn't seem to be published anywhere but here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Not so faaaaaast![edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, the consensus here seems to hold that Category:Catchphrases is not a good enough reason to keep the redirect; and that it is otherwise a very obscure search term that is not exclusively associated with the target. ~ mazca talk 13:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect with made-up spelling Drawn Some (talk) 04:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the phrase is drawn right from the text of the article and is indexed in Category:Catchphrases for those searching by the phrase, while spelling may vary, it is obvious from the category, and of course autocomplete finishes the phrase for you. I want to thank my wikistalker for bringing this up. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete stock phrase used in tons of detective potboilers. 76.66.192.64 (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - phrase not exclusively associated with Besser. Additionally, it is a highly unlikely search term. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is more than version create a disambiguation page. the quote is right from the article, and that is why we have categories, so you can search without having to type out the phrase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
A DAB page here is a solution looking for a problem. No one is expecting an article with this name. If it's referenced in the Besser article, a search will find it. TJRC (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful" It's only in Category:Catchphrases because the redirect creator put it there. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TJRC, and that the exact number of repeated characters doesn't seem to be published anywhere but here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

You crazy, youuuuu![edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, the consensus here seems to hold that Category:Catchphrases is not a good enough reason to keep the redirect; and that it is otherwise a very obscure search term. ~ mazca talk 13:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect with made-up spelling Drawn Some (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the phrase is drawn right from the text of the article and is indexed in Category:Catchphrases for those searching by the phrase, while spelling may vary, it is obvious from the category, and of course autocomplete finishes the phrase for you. I want to thank my wikistalker for bringing this up. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reason to believe anyone would ever search for this specific spelling/punctuation combination; there are no non-wiki Google Hits. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful" It's only in Category:Catchphrases because the redirect creator put it there. TJRC (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TJRC, and that the exact number of repeated characters doesn't seem to be published anywhere but here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Delta operated by Northwest[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete both as unlikely search terms. mazca talk 13:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An extremely unlikely search term that serves no real purpose ThaddeusB (talk) 03:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am editor which I wrote original article. Your analyis basically correct, so I didn't object anything.— Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom; note that even redirect creator User:B767-500 now apparently agrees with deletion, above. TJRC (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have added a redirect of the same nature to this nom. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't better to show separate item? I didn't knew about bundle together! — Preceding unsigned comment added by B767-500 (talk • contribs)
      • It is generally acceptable to combine like items into one XfD discussion. However, if you object I can split them. Let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

~

The Chattanoogan[edit]

The result of the discussion was procedural close - redirect has been replaced by an article, so there is nothing to debate here. (Non-admin closure) ThaddeusB (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of newspaper inappropriately redirects to article on geographical place where it is not even mentioned. Drawn Some (talk) 01:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the newspaper is mentioned in the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apart from the fact that it is a website, not a newspaper, it was mentioned in the article only because the poster of the above comment put a mention there. The "citation" he gave to support its inclusion was to the web site itself, scarcely independent, and the Wikilink he gave ostensibly to the publisher was in fact a link to a disambiguation page which does not even mention him. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep The site is referenced in 20 different articles, and we should at least point people towards the city it covers until an article is created. Alansohn (talk) 02:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as moot. Redirect is now gone, replaced by an article on the news source at issue. I'd WP:NAC this if I knew how. TJRC (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

When was the last outbreal of cholera in the United States[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete both highly unlikely and misspelled redirect. If we're going to use Wikipedia as an experimental area for natural-language search engines we probably should get consensus for that first. ~ mazca talk 13:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useless edirect with misspelled word, "outbreal". Redirect with correct spelling exists. Drawn Some (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC) And here it is:[reply]

Redirects are not a question-and-answers game. Drawn Some (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete We aren't WikiAnswers and there is no reason to believe anyone would ever use this redirect. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a search-engine testbed. TJRC (talk) 22:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mouth pop[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, consensus seems to be that these terms are sufficiently general that pointing them to one person is generally misleading and obscure. ~ mazca talk 13:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General term for an action or sound that probably every child has made inappropriately redirects to a particular person. Drawn Some (talk) 01:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If more mouth pop guys appear they can be disambiguated. While searching by sounds is not easy, this is a best attempt. We can't use "Pop!" since that already has a few other entries. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The expressions "mouth pop" and "pop noise" are not specifically associated with Feld, and there is no evident reason to suppose anyone would look for him by those expressions. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; at best "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". TJRC (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obscure and unlikely search terms. Otto4711 (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mouth pop guy[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete, general consensus seems to be that this is a sufficiently obscure search term to be an inadvisable redirect. ~ mazca talk 13:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General term redirects to a particular person. Drawn Some (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep If more mouth pop guys appear they can be disambiguated— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
  • Delete There is no evidence that I can find that this expression is particularly associated with Feld. For example, a Google search for "Mouth pop guy" Feld hits only this Wikipedia redirect. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence the term is actually used to describe Feld or anyone else. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Feld's mouth pop was his best known schtick, from a character actor who is unlikely to be known by name. When there are other mouth pop guys down the road we can turn this into a disambiguation page. Alansohn (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; at best "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". TJRC (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obscure and unlikely search term. Otto4711 (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Chimp attack[edit]

The result of the discussion was Prrocedurally closed - page has been turned into a list. If concerns remain, use WP:AfD instead. (Non-admin closure) ThaddeusB (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generic term inappropriately redirects to an article about a particular chimpanzee even though there have been many chimpanzee attacks in the news over the years. Drawn Some (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Now being altered to be even more inappropriate, please see history. Drawn Some (talk) 01:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Fauquier Democrat[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep, there certainly seems to be consensus that this can definitely point somewhere, with its current target appearing reasonable. ~ mazca talk 13:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper name inappropriately redirects to a geographic place where it is not even mentioned in the article. Drawn Some (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Fauquier Democrat is mentioned in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)
  • Delete The only mention of The Fauquier Democrat in the article was a highly artificial one put there by the poster of the above comment, with no evident purpose other than to justify this "keep" comment. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is an "highly artificial one" exactly? How does that fit in with verifiability? Either the The Fauquier Democrat is a newspaper in Fauquier County, Virginia or it is not. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:12, 22 July 2009 (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/2009_July_21&oldid=1138576738"