Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 10

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 10, 2009

The result of the discussion was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 07:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should be deleted, John W. Moussach, Jr. was originally an article, and probably a hoax, but instead of being deleted it was redirected to Hoax. snigbrook (talk) 10:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undo the redirects and make a procedural nomination at Articles for deletion for these articles. This is the wrong venue for article deletion. ~ Ningauble (talk) 12:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all useless redirects. It is extremely unlikely that anyone looking for members of the family - assuming that it exists - is looking for general information on the subject of hoaxes and it does not appear that any text was merged into Hoax so there is no need to preserve the edit history. I see no reason why this needs to go through AFD. Otto4711 (talk) 16:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. John W. Moussach, Jr. is the only page that has any non-redirect history, and it's been a redirect since Decmber 2007; these pages are properly discussed here. In any case, the redirects don't have any useful relation to the Hoax article, and the previous contents of John W. Moussach, Jr. were completely unreferenced (hoax or not), so there's no reason to keep them. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:35, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As redirects, these should indeed be discussed here. The articles have nothing whatsoever to do with the Hoax article and should be done away (if only to unclog the intertubes). Probably came from someone thinking it was a hoax and, rather than noming for CSD/AfD appropriately, redirected it. Funny. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete --Allen3 ^talk 07:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a disambiguation page for Resistance so having this all caps redirect is redundant. The current target music album does not benefit from this redirect at all. ZabMilenko^{How am I driving?} 06:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - People who type a query into the search box in caps would be sent to the redirect page instead of the disambiguation page. WaysToEscape (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Current redirect is extremely unhelpful. Searchers are more likely to be looking for Ohms or the French during WWII and should be sent to the dab page. That's the whole point of having it. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Kept. It is not causing any harm. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - pointless redirect. Anyone searching for either George H. W. Bush or George W. Bush by typing "George Bush" will reach the disambiguation page before typing in any parenthetical. No edit history needing preserving. Otto4711 (talk) 01:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not everyone uses our search function to find articles on Wikipedia; they might use an external search engine such as Google that doesn't have our autosuggestion feature. This seems like a reasonable disambiguation term for searching or linking regardless. Also, I don't see that the nominator has identified any actual problem caused by the existence of this redirect that would be solved by deleting it. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Anyone searching for George Bush using an external search engine would still find the appropriate page without this redirect. The existence of this link sets a precedent for creating pointless redirects. I could create George Bush (43rd US President), George W. Bush (43rd U.S. President) and George Bush (U.S. President) plus a few others. Five or six redirects for all 2.9 million Wikipedia articles would cause problems. Leaving unhelpful redirects in existence just sets a precedent for an editor to massively boost their edit count by creating thousands of redirects. WaysToEscape (talk) 01:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Anyone using an external engine like Google will be happy to see the Wikipedia article at position two, right after the White House. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Delete per WaysToEscape. Also, I simply don't see the usefulness of the redirect. mynameinc (t|c|p) 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plausible way of searching, plus the page view stats have 30-40 views a day, so someone finds it useful. PaulGS (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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