Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 19, 2009

Thor (2010 film)[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under criterion G7 (author requests deletion). –Black Falcon (Talk) 06:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed, actual film is a 2011 release. No Thor 2010 film exists, content at Thor (2011 film) supersedes, and has citation, and so on. (I had a longer write up, but Twinkle's xfd eated it. ThuranX (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per announced release year. Have yet to see a case where a film (especially of this sort) comes out earlier than anticipated. More likely for a delay to take place. While redirects are cheap, I think we can go ahead and delete this without anyone missing it. —Erik (talk • contrib) 23:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please note Erik is the First, and only, editor of the page. ThuranX (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I made that?! :P My bad. Do away with it, then, due to the updated news. —Erik (talk • contrib) 02:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Original research is permitted[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under criterion G3 (vandalism, see diff). –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather silly, un-necessary, unlikely "typo"... ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 15:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Grockel[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy retarget under WP:BOLD –UnitedStatesian (Talk) 19:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This dictionary definition was merged to tourism for no good reason. I demerged it, so the redirect is useless. The dicdef was referring to slang for "tourist" used in a specific county in England, if every county in the world were to enter their own slang for the word "tourist" into the tourism article, it would no longer be a tourism article. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 11:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Windows System 32 File[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted under criterion G7 by Dank (talk · contribs). –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect. Target bears little or no relation to the original Tagishsimon (talk) 10:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirects are cheap. But since you care, I'll G7 it. I created this as the result of an AfD in response to several votes to redirect the page. — Jake Wartenberg 18:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Google.ae[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
Many redirects to Google search#Domain names

Delete all Yes, I know redirects are cheap, but they won't be if we have 165 set up for every company that registers domains in every TLD (and give me a moment to complete the 165 nominations by going to each page) UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all as, in my opinion, too general a nomination. There's plenty of coverage of, for example, google in the uk (see for example google news search and google.co.uk would seem a reasonable search term for this, "google.co.uk" even gets multiple news hits itself (e.g. here). Many internet users in the UK with less knowledge of the internet may not even know google.com exists. I expect similar situations would exist with many other countries listed. I also note that google.com is not listed for deletion. If we're going to delete all these and not the .com version I believe we'd be showing undue bias as "google.com" isn't set up as an international home page where you can then go to a local version but rather as a specific US version. I'd be tempted to say keep all of them even if listed individually although I would at least look at each case. Nominating all 165 at once is too impratical as the different domains are likely to have very different exposure in the press and the like. Personally I also think the redirects are wrong and should just be to the Google search page as this is what any searcher is likely to be looking for rather than a list of all domains google uses. Dpmuk (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed google.co.uk from the nomination. UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, I certainly wouldn't recommend doing this as a rule, but they're already here, and not harming anyone. –xeno talk 17:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment probably in this case, not a problem, if this becomes a common thing we may revisit the idea, particularly for websites that merely redirect to the .com or .org that is the main place. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. It's acceptable (and expected) for our Wiki users to type something like "google.ru" in the Wikipedia search box and expect to get information about it. Since our main goal as an encyclopedia is to provide useful information to our users, keep the redirects. Truthanado (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all This is certainly not good to do in practice, but like Xeno said, they're already here, and not harming anyone. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all At least twenty of them are linked from Wikipedia:Alexa/Top 100 and so are notable URLs. For me that means all of them are reasonable redirects --Rumping (talk) 10:03, 26 May 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_May_19&oldid=1138576907"