Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 17

March 17[edit]

Game Over Yeah → Sega Rally Championship[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was the sound/ song that played during the game over screen for Sega Rally Championship and somehow became a small internet meme about ten years ago. Almost an implausible redirect (criteria 7), I don't think anyone would be searching for SRC under this title, also zero inbound links. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, implausible that anyone would use this as a search term. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 09:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Audio Evacuation System → Fire alarm system[edit]

The result of the discussion was Withdrawn by nominator, apparently larger use of this term than originally thought. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of a fire alarm system being referred to as this. -Senseless!... says you, says me 17:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact English term but non-native speakers use constructions like this a lot. And there's very similiar terms e.g. in German. Do you work in a related business? Do you have IEC 60849 handy? This refers to "Sound Systems for Emergency Purposes", but Google also finds some results for this exact term. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term I've heard in reference to a "talking fire alarm" is Voice evacuation system, implying that the device uses a vocal prompt instead of or in addition to a standard alarm tone. I brought this to RFD since audio evacuation system (to me at least) seems more ambiguous - since all fire alarms technically involve audio of some type. That being said, if google is showing the term is used, we'd better be safe than sorry and just keep the redirect. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Killing Yourself to Live → Killing Yourself to Live: 85% of a True Story[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, title comes from Black Sabbath song that recently got deleted. --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 17:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I could see this aiding searches for the book. If the Black Sabbath Song becomes notable, then Killing Yourself to Live can be turned into a DAB. -Senseless!... says you, says me 19:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. This redirect was created after an AfD was closed as "delete". There is discussion questioning that closure here. Any result here should not be used to prejudice a potential DRV of the deleted article. DHowell (talk) 03:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Double note, there is an ongoing DRV here which has come to include this song. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 20:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but I've introduced a dab clarification at the top of the target page "Killing Yourself to Live redirects here, for the Black Sabbath album" etc... That should be sufficient to prevent confusion until a proper DAB page is warranted (normally three or more items to disambiguate between). Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can understand the use of this redirect. Captain panda 21:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change to dab page There is no reason a dab has to have more than two pages J04n (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes. It's called a WP:HATNOTE. Tavix (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no reason for a dab page, there is a hatnote already on the article page that serves the same purpose. Tavix (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 1 → Philippines' Next Top Model[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. History needs to be kept per GFDL requirements. As this redirect causes no harm, we might as well keep it in the easiest way possible. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for real. Only one cycle aired. There was no confirmation to air second cycle, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 2. ApprenticeFan Messages Work 12:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a second cycle airs. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 08:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there was no confirmation for a second cycle in the Philippine franchise, a hoax editor created PNTM Cycle 2 article back in January 2008. The Cycle 2 article was deleted two times per first AfD which it was consisted on Philippine Idol 2 discussion and second AfD. However, the editor was blocked accusing sockpuppetry case and violating Wikipedia rules. --ApprenticeFan Messages Work 13:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Tavix (talk) 23:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nom does neither mention the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 1 nor the merge discussion mentioned there. Checking the edit histories, it looks that the merge actually took place on December 5, 2008.[1][2] Moreover, if there is only one cycle, the redirect is still logically correct even if not a useful search term, so we can and actually need to keep the edit history there.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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