Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 8, 2010

Bagh-i-Muattar[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Works of Aleister Crowley. Go ahead and create the article if you feel it meets the notability requirements for books. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bagh-i-Muattar This book is cited as "The Scented Garden of Abdullah the Satirist of Shiraz" in the article Works of Aleister Crowley at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_of_Aleister_Crowley#Poetry -- therefore it should not be redirected.0XQ (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely that simply means that the redirect should be changed from Aleister Crowley to Works of Aleister Crowley? I didn't realise that the separate "works" article existed when I created the redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since numerous (dozens of) Wikipedia articles already exist about individual writings of Aleister Crowley, why should an article about this particular writing be redirected when the other articles are not so redirected? (To see a list of the writings of Aleister Crowley on which there are already Wikipedia articles, please see Works of Aleister Crowley.)0XQ (talk) 07:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I misinterpreted your position. I thought that you were calling for deletion of the redirect. If you want to replace it with an actual article then there's no need to discuss it here - you can just go ahead and do so, but please don't just make it a list of quotations. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it Phil Bridger is right. If anyone wants to create an article they can do so, as long as there is no article there is no harm in having the redirect. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think (although I don't usually go in for mindreading) that the nominator's concern is that there was an attempt at an article under this name which was propoposed for deletion as being a list of quotations rather than an actual encyclopedia article. I then redirected the article as a better alternative than deletion. I would suggest changing the redirect to go to Works of Aleister Crowley unless and until someone writes a proper article conforming at least to the standards described at WP:STUB. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Richard Wynn[edit]

The result of the discussion was Dabify ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:49, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD assertion (which I declined) was that this redirect is to the wrong person, and while I'm unsure exactly where this redirect should go, I highly doubt that it should be deleted entirely. A disambiguation page or hatnote may be in order. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, there are a couple of links to Richard Wynn, and they should be piped as [[Richard Wynn (MP)|Richard Wynn]] since the dates are wrong for that Richard Wynn to be this one. But there is no call to delete, and if and when the MP has an article disambiguation can occur. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Looks to me like this should be a dab between the two baronets, and I'd think also Richard Wynne.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree with Glenfarclas. Should we mark RFD on those other articles too, then? Si Trew (talk) 08:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we mark RfD on pages that are not redirects? Anyway, I don't think it'd be necessary, as those pages would not change, they'd just get listed on a new disambiguation page.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Oddities giftware[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Article was initially created on a gifts company in February 2009. Title should have been speedy deleted but was instead redirected. There's no use of the term "oddities" in the target article nor evidence that the term relates to free software. —C.Fred (talk) 07:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

(tabes dorsalis)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. Killiondude (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No good reason to have parentheses around an article name unless the article name is actually supposed to have parentheses. — the Man in Question (in question) 06:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bmagnet[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 22:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was created along with a comment that magnet used to be spelled bmagnet. Unsourced, and I am unable to verify online or in my Electrical Engineering books. Original author has not replied to request for sources. Not quite an R3 (because not a spelling mistake), and probably not quite a G3. I recommend that absent sourcing this should be deleted.  7  02:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, magnet came from Greek through Latin, in both of which languages it would be preposterous to start a word with "bm-". GBooks and GScholar searches turn up a handful of false positives that wind up actually being "Bmagnet", "einen Schreibmagnet", and the like.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Glenfarclas. I don't think it's entirely preposterous to the extent that Greek letters are often transcribed as digraph of two consonants (e.g. ps, th) but this ain't one of them. Si Trew (talk) 10:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I just meant that no Greek or Latin word would begin with bm-. Obviously mn-, pn-, and so on are different.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was racking my brains to think of any odd case like that, but all I could think of was "molybdenum" and "webmaster" (and the second doesn't count anyway). For "molybdenum", it is (according to my Collins) Latin: molybdaena "galena" from Greek "moiubdos" (lead). It would not entirely surprise me that something, along the way, has got corrupted to start with bm-, so I was racking my brains and hunting for it. I would still vote delete, but mention it as the exception that proves the rule (if I am allowed to use that phrase in this sense), had I found one. Si Trew (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

José Pedro de Alcântara,[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect with a comma at the end created from a mistake in typing.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy R3 Delete unlikely  7  02:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not recently created (which is why I put it here), but fine by me.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right when I "moused-over" it popups told me it was only 2 hours old, but I now see that was your edit - not the original article. Duh... TGIF.  7  04:39, 8 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_8&oldid=1148682718"