Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 8, 2009

Template:Law unref[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy close, nominated out of process bd2412 T 22:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unused template redirect; only used on two articles when I redirected it, which I edited to bypass the redirect due to a bug. I can't see any reason why this would be used in the future. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a maintenance template, and is supposed to be unused at times, depending on the need for it to be applied to articles. Do not change it to a redirect again without obtaining a consensus for such a change at the governing wikiproject, which is Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. bd2412 T 22:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bubble pushing[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was keep as retargeted (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. The page history indicates that an editor believed the old content of this page was basically a description of DeMorgan's laws, so redirected it to that article. However, the term does not appear in the target article, so anyone who is actually looking for the term "bubble pushing" is going to be left confused. Either (a) delete, (b) convert back into an article, or (c) add this concept to the target article. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It certainly is a restatement of DeMorgan's laws, and if it is deemed notable enough to keep, it should be retargeted to Logic gate#De Morgan equivalent symbols. I would argue against artificiality inserting this precise phrase into that section for no reason other than support of the redirect. -- ToET 13:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Logic gate#De Morgan equivalent symbols as it is a valid search term an the new target also mentions bubbles.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since there seems to be consensus among the few who have commented (plus me) that we should retarget to Logic gate#De Morgan equivalent symbols, I have been bold and done so. Since the discussion has been open for ten days I see no reason why it should not now be closed. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:17, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Nick Synodis[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 08:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely vandalism with no apparent connection to the target article. A google search on the terms yields a single hit of a 2007 discussion on a Yu-Gi-Oh! gaming board in which one participant identified himself as "Nick Synodis" to which another participant responded by asking if he was a duck, suggesting an in-joke. ToET 14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Darrel Rundus[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 01:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear how this person is related to the subject of the redirected-to article. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ursal the Mauler[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 08:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A very very minor NPC in the game World of Warcraft. It will never be covered in the target article due to lack of notability, and is as such a misleading redirect. It is a highly unlikely search term, and thus it is more harmful than beneficial. Taelus (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neuroimaging of internal carotid artery dissection in Horner’s syndrome[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as misleading as the article does not cover such in depth a topic. This started as an article which was correctly identified as an "Overly technical cut & paste essay, comprehensible only to experts (student paper?)" and converted into a redirect. It does receive 15 hits per month, but presumably dissapoints every time.ToET 04:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I put the redirect on here as a quick and easy way to get rid of a junk article. I'd be happy to see it go. Hairhorn (talk) 11:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Snoop Dogg/infobox[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, a separate subpage was made for the infobox. As a result, it was redirected, making this redirect useless now. — ξxplicit 04:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a sandbox which is seemingly finished with. --Taelus (talk) 07:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly a temporary redirect that has served its purpose. There's no need to hang onto a "subpage" redirect. B.Wind (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Seville briggs[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seville Briggs was not Nas' birth name. No apparent reason as to why this redirect should exist to begin with. — ξxplicit 03:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as vandalism - sole "contribution" from User:2008 LHS. Original post under this title was a cut'n'paste parody article.B.Wind (talk) 03:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User:Kanye Swift[edit]

The result of the discussion was withdrawn as nominator. — ξxplicit 02:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect, amazingly useless. — ξxplicit 03:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, cross namespace and unsuitable. --Taelus (talk) 07:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck. User to Article seems to be allowed on a second read-through of guidelines... And thinking about it, it isnt really harmful, as no search term will ever point to user space. --Taelus (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Are cross namespace redirects into article space truly verboten? WP:R#DELETE #5 does say "cross-namespace redirect out of article space". And if so, then why not simply blank the user page and speedy close the nomination? -- ToET 11:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The full sentence reads: It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. I read that as articles can't be redirected to non-article space, not vice-versa, but correct me if I'm wrong. — ξxplicit 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirects from user space to article space occur with regularity as a result of moving articles from sandboxes. Breaking the redirect would break any links that appear in earlier editions of Wikipedia. The editor whose space incubated the article should have the ultimate authority on this, not here. B.Wind (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no history to this redirect, or else it would be evident within the move log. The redirect was created not even a month ago and the chances of the average reader searching for User:Kanye Swift is basically impossible. Furthermore, this redirect wasn't linked to anything except Beyoncé Knowles prior to this discussion (and odd target at that, as the user name refers to Kanye West and Taylor Swift). — ξxplicit 18:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, this is a userpage of a registered editor (albeit a new one), and we should give deference to that editor's desire as to whether to keep or delete it.B.Wind (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Beyonka Jones[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete G3 --Taelus (talk) 08:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé Knowles was never known as Beyonka Jones. Search term is unlikely, near impossible. — ξxplicit 03:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as vandalism from vandalism-only (currently blocked) account. B.Wind (talk) 04:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_8&oldid=1138577070"