Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 10, 2010

Xponent[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally created as a spam article for a company with this name in October, and turned into a redirect, originally to Exponent (which is also a redirect), as a quick way of removing the article. Doesn't seem a likely search term for the target article. Cassandra 73 (talk) 17:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with 56 visits last month, I would have voted keep, but Deckadance links to it and I think that's where all the traffic is coming from. So, delete to make way for an article on a model of a synthesizer. Josh Parris 17:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not seem like a likely search term, and I agree with Josh's reasoning in full. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Chrismahanukwanzakah[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Chrismukkah ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination. There was an AfD right here Bradjamesbrown (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for clarity: This is a soft redirect to Wikitionary. --Taelus (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A full AfD on this closed yesterday. The result was delete. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chrismahanukwanzakah (3rd nomination)--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 16:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No opinion I can't say I believe it should have a redirect (I don't think it belongs on Wiktionary either), but the arguments here are reasonable.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 05:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AfD. Cnilep (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AfD. SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH! JBsupreme (talk) 19:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Consensus at AfD was that the article did not belong. There was not much debate on whether or not there ought to be a soft redirect to Wiktionary. Personally, I think it makes plenty of sense to keep this soft redirect, and I don't see any reasons for deleting the redirect presented above. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a soft redirect and not a recreation of the deleted content, so the AfD is completely irrelevant. Deleting the soft redirect looks simply spiteful - guiding readers to Wiktionary is a good idea. Fences&Windows 20:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chrismukkah. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AfD, nom. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    While I don't agree with the AfD, the consensus to delete outright hasn't changed in two weeks. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD deals with whether or not an article should be deleted. RfD deals with whether or not a redirect should be deleted. The arguments currently advanced by the "delete" votes in this RfD do not provide any valid reasons for deletion, as listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#Reasons for deleting. Policy-based reasons for keeping are WP:RFD#KEEP #3 and #5. The redirect allows readers to find useful information on either another Wikimedia project or on another article.

    Why do you believe that deleting this redirect would be a net positive for Wikipedia? Cunard (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as soft redirect or retarget to Chrismukkah The AfD dealt with the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. This redirect should be kept since it is helpful for the readers, as it leads them to more information about the term. Cunard (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Chrismukkah. A link to wiktionary is also helpful and can be added there if there isn't one already. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as soft redirect, this is the most useful to our readers, to point them at Wiktionary. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closure of AfDs as delete never prohibits creation of redirects (unless that's a stipulation of the closing). The AfD has no bearing at all on this soft redirect which is entirely appropriate. ÷seresin 22:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep either as a soft redirect to Wiktionary, where the definition is adequately sourced, or as a redirect to Chrismukkah, which is essentially the same term and definitely the same idea. I added a link to the wiktionary definition in its See also. As stated above, the AfD stated no article on this term. A soft redirect was suggested by two participants but not really discussed. It is certainly a viable option. Either redirecting them to its definition or a similar term would help people searching for information. Toliar (talk) 22:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by deleting admin Personally, I don't see any objection to a soft redirect to Wiktionary. This wasn't suggested as an option in the discussion so wasn't considered in the close but would have been a valid option if it had been raised. Note cunard asked me to clarify my opinion on this. Spartaz Humbug! 05:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep either as a soft redirect or a redirect to Chrismukkah, with the second being my weak preference. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The soft redirect to Wiktionary leads to a definition that states no more than the obvious: Chrismahanukwanzakah is Christmas, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa. The redirect to Chrismukkah, on the other hand, actually provides an encyclopedic look at the subject. Presumably anyone looking for "Chrismahanukwanzakah" has the sense to see to which three holidays it refers. Furthermore, "Christmahanukwanzakah" would be the more appropriate spelling, anyway. — the Man in Question (in question) 20:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per the Man in Question (talk · contribs)'s comment, I support a retarget to Chrismukkah#Similar holidays, which is better than the soft redirect. Cunard (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Karel apek[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Notability (computer and video game)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirects, as implausible shortcuts. They are not used anywhere, and are unlikely to be typed by someone seeking that page. MBelgrano (talk) 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentCVGs gets a fair number of hits, a bit odd given the lack of links; perhaps it was once linked to. Less hits this month. Josh Parris 01:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the lot. Josh Parris 01:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectly reasonable, especially when WP:CVG is considered, the WikiProject (former name "Computer and Video Games"). 76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible as they are related to a WikiProject which used to use the acronym CVG. Whilst they are historic in a way, as the term is lesser used now, they may still be of use to those who are new, especially as some of the WikiProjects banners still use the old CVG tags. I see no harm in keeping them, especially as this is project space. --Taelus (talk) 10:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable redirects due to the abbreviation for the associated WikiProject. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete #3. Neutral on the remainder. — the Man in Question (in question) 00:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say #3 is also valid, as the acronym can stand for both "Computer and Video Game" or "Computer and Video Games", thus the "s" on the end making it plural. --Taelus (talk) 10:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But the s is superfluous. Acronyms are not usually written in plural, regardless of how they are pronounced, unless the acronym has superseded the word(s) itself (like CD → CDs). — the Man in Question (in question) 03:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think three should go, but I don't want to help the backlog, and this redirect's no big deal. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:41, 17 January 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_January_10&oldid=1142587847"