Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 24

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 24

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 24, 2009

Redirects to Template:Navbox / Template:Infobox Person

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were tagged for speedy deletion by Locos epraix (talk · contribs) as G6 but as they are redirects, they should be judged by redirect criteria, of which none apply. Thus I decided to list them here for this user instead. Regards SoWhy 21:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "general" CSDs are valid for all pages, including redirects. Powers T 22:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true enough, G6 only applies to uncontroversial maintenance. Since these have been declined and brought to RfD, they can no longer be regarded as uncontroversial. Gavia immer (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite aware that G6 applies to all pages (sorry if I phrased it unclearly) but I did not think that those are uncontroversial deletions. Regards SoWhy 10:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Beck/redirects

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary, unlikely search term, no meaningful history. Powers T 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Booger (word)

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely search term; already deleted at AfD before the redirect was created. Powers T 18:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Too Long To Read

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and undesirable cross-namespace redirect from the mainspace to the project space. The redirect does not have significant incoming links or meaningful edit history. It is not a standard expression of the initialism "tl;dr" and receives virtually no traffic (checked using http://stats.grok.se/), except perhaps that which is generated by minor links from one talk page and one archive. Delete. (Redirect creator notified using {{RFDNote}}.)BLACK FALCON (TALK) 17:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

RICKROLL'D

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:42, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rickroll'd already exists, so why have the same page in capital letters? gordonrox24 (talk) 16:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lightbulb joke (university)

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Kept as no consensus for deletion. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't begin to imagine how anyone would find this redirect useful. ╟─TreasuryTaghemicycle─╢ 15:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charles Hoosier Taylor

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; bad pun ("who's your tailor?") by an anon, no "real" edits since. No real person by this name to be found. bd2412 T 14:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Enzyme induction and inhibition

[edit]
The result of the discussion was moot per here. Cunard (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was originally listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enzyme induction and inhibition. I closed that discussion as procedural keep for being at the wrong venue and have listed it here. The nominator's rationale from the AfD is as follows:

. I am neutral. Cunard (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A merger with enzyme inhibitor was previously discussed in 2006 but it seems it has now been redirected without discussion to the featured article on enzyme inhibitor (see history; contains a lot of good content that shouldn't just be deleted). There is no article with a good discussion of enzyme induction, and enzyme inhibitor does not discuss gene expression inhibition. I suggest that we restore this article and let it focus on gene expression inhibition and induction, which is not discussed anywhere else. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:05, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Respirable Suspended Particle

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 12:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is the result of a page move to fix the capitalisation. It would not be a likely thing to search for. It has no main space incoming links. JIMp talk·cont 05:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:PARANOID

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being paranoid could mean just about anything - I see no particular reason that it should link to an essay about not assuming someone is a sock puppet. ThaddeusB (talk) 05:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hillary Duff Image redirects

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete all. Ruslik_Zero 11:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, cross namespace, no incoming links, and unlikely search term redirects. VegaDark (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

CAT:M2T

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:47, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue how "M2T" can possibly represent "Copy to Wiktionary". No incoming links, unlikely search term. VegaDark (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of "Daria" Episodes

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 11:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect with no incoming links and an unlikely search parameter. It's the result of a page move from 2006 and I nominate for deletion. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 04:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Master of Illusion Express: Nensha Camera

[edit]
The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The target makes no mention of the page name. The target is a disambiguation page. If there were an article to redirect to, it would make sense to redirect to that page, not to the disambiguation page. I tagged this for immediate deletion as a nonsense redirect, and the User who created it removed my notification from his Talk page, and the db tag, which is not appropriate, and is specifically forbidden by the text in the speedy deletion template. I didn't want to edit war, so I tried explaining to the original editor why I felt this was wrong, but I got no reasonable explanation ("Listing it for deletion is nothing less than pointless. There's nothing that CAN be said, as all most people know is the name, which is why the redirect exists. It may not have content, but will. It was just announced". This redirect is meaningless; if the original author wants to create a page about this topic, more power to him, but this redirect serves no purpose. I gave the original editor 24 hours to come up with a reasonable redirect, but none was forthcoming. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was the result of a mistake. The redirect now directs to the video game article, which mentions it. Requesting user withdraw. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a different game. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Wow, I applaud your incredible efforts you're taking to be stubborn. I guess doing exactly what you said - ie, covering this title in an article to make the redirect make sense - is not enough. You basically are saying it is, 100% impossible for this redirect to exist. It is NOT a different game, and even if it were, it is not significant enough to cover in a separate article. It's a $2.00 game that comes with two mini-games that could be summed up in a single paragraph. I don't see how, at any point, being a "different game" (I put that in quotations because it isn't) means it cannot be covered there. Seriously, are you on a mission to get this redirect deleted for anything besides spite now? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And just to clarify, explain to me how any single argument you've provided to delete the redirect applies anymore. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.