Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 1

January 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 1, 2010

Murder of CIA personnel in Afghanistan[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep as targeted to Camp Chapman attack ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of CIA personnel in Afghanistan → 2009 Attack on CIA base (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete. Unspecific, inaccurate description, unlikely search term. Cs32en 14:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree that this is not specific enough, but it seems likely enough right now (after all, somebody created the page under that name). —Кузьма^討論 08:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but redirect to Camp Chapman attack. It appears to be a reasonable search (except for the omission of the year), perhaps more so than 2009 Attack on CIA base, which omits the country, and itself redirects to Camp Chapman attack. Me Three (talk to me) 22:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that the user who created the article under that name would not have searched the article using that name, and that the words chosen by the user reflect his particular personal view on the incident. Cs32en 23:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: While POV redirects are generally accepted, this wording is not being used in reliable sources anywhere, nor in any other sources or commentary that I have seen. Cs32en 20:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget - To Camp Chapman attack. I think it is a likely enough key word search for someone who doesn't know all the details of the event. The wording is a bit POV, but redirects are not covered by the neutrality policy, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note

The target article 2009 Attack on CIA base has been redirected to Camp Chapman attack. — the Man in Question (in question) 16:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of CIA personnel in Afghanistan → Camp Chapman attack (links to redirect • history • stats)

Neutral. It seems unnecessary to rephrase an idea just for the sake of a redirect. On the other hand, since this redirect was posted here the day of its creation, I have no idea how much traffic it would have received. — the Man in Question (in question) 16:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2000-2009 in fashion as 2010 is almost upon us[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2000-2009 in fashion as 2010 is almost upon us → 2000–2009 in fashion (links to redirect • history • stats)

Very implausible search term; borderline CSD R3 Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 09:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highly implausible, not helpful. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculously implausible, considering how 2010 actually is upon us now, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like it was filled with lots of keywords to turn up in a Google search. Me Three (talk to me) 22:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like a magazine title article. Neither plausible nor helpful. Glenfarclas (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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