Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 16, 2010

Wikipedia:DMOZ[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 delete. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Money Game (The Price Is Right)[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary redirect created when a user turned Money Game into a disambig page. Only the disambig page links to Money Game (The Price Is Right); all other links which are meant for the game show pricing game link directly to List of The Price Is Right pricing games#Money Game. Discussion on Talk:Money Game (The Price Is Right) is not necessary for retention. Sottolacqua (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, I doubt anyone's going to type in the qualifier and there's no article history worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep page been at this tile for a long time. Rich Farmbrough, 18:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Rich Farmbrough is correct; also, If I were interested in information about the pricing game, started to type "Money Game" into the search box, and saw the entry with this parenthetical disambiguator, I would click on it, thereby saving myself a trip through the DAB page. Nothing wrong with that.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—no reason to delete. Redirects are cheap. –Grondemar 17:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

United Staes Senate special election West Virginia, 1948[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely misspelling —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, is not a recently created redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - this is a long-standing title. We don't delete such long-standing typos where, as here, they are harmless, because that could break internal links in external site - this is explained in the guidelines. Bridgeplayer (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — there are no Wikilinks to this article and it's extremely unlikely anyone outside Wikipedia would have this typographical error in their links. Where is the guideline of which you speak? —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - incoming links are irrelevant for a redirect which is purely a search aid. For the guideline, see WP:RFD#HARMFUL. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one didn't get tagged properly by my script, sorry:

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

Alive (flim)[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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low traffic, implausible redirect. It's very unlikely someone would spell "flim". :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep is not recently created. Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Unnecessary and unlikely given that it's a disambiguated title. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Irrelevant. Implausible redirects should only be deleted if they are recent. Rich Farmbrough, 19:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
      • The time between the creation of a redirect and its listing does not matter as much. You are confusing CSD criteria from RfD ones.

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:32, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

        • consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones this is the key summary. Redirects are dirt cheap, there is no advantage to deleting them - the database grows bigger, more bytes are expended discussing them than they take. Most redirects should be left, or repointed. Most of the rest are speediable. Rich Farmbrough, 23:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, implausible and strange. Implausible misspellings do not have a permanent claim to existence; per Reasons for Deletion, they "might cause confusion," often "make[] no sense," and almost always constitute "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, [which] is unlikely to be useful."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — We can't have a redirect for every possible misspelling, the number of which is almost infinite. — Anomalocaris (talk) 19:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NO one is suggesting that we should. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST.... Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Grep (Unix)[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Low traffic, implausible redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep "grep" is a unix utility, so how is this implausible? If you suspect there are other uses of Grep on Wikipedia, this seems like a way to specify the unix usage. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly plausible, and indeed getting tens of hits per month . Rich Farmbrough, 18:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Entirely plausible given that grep is a standard Unix utility. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—plausible, no reason to delete. Redirects are cheap. –Grondemar 17:02, 20 December 2010 (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/2010_December_16&oldid=1148046847"