Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 3, 2010

Pro se - legaly representing yourself in the United States[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 deleted by JzG as WP:R3. Bridgeplayer (talk) 09:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Badly spelled, unlikely to be entered. Created by a move by an editor who has a "unique" grasp of the English language. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete and tagged as such - if it is an implausible typo or misnomer then it is speediable. Conversely, if it is plausible then it should be kept! Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of pitchers who have retired 28 straight batters in a nine-inning MLB game[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See talk page. The title itself is an absurdity. (sorry non-North-American Wikipedians, need to know about baseball to understand) Impossibly unlikely search term. Pichpich (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and list - As it happens, I'm a North-American Wikipedian who doesn't know about baseball but I do understand the issues :-) On the face of it, since the official records do not show that this guy "retired 28 straight batters in a nine-inning MLB game" then this redirect can be deleted as misleading. However, I am not happy with the procedure of tagging for speedy deletion, having that declined, creating a redirect then coming here asking for the redirect to be deleted. I would prefer that the original page be dealt with through AFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is that 28 straight batters in nine innings is technically impossible. So one might as well rename this so-called list "list of people named Armando Galarraga who pitched for the Detroit Tigers in 2010". There's no place more appropriate to discuss the deletion of the redirect left behind. Pichpich (talk) 00:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but this is not a left behind redirect after, say, a page move. After your speedy was declined the correct procedure was to Prod the page or take it to AFD. For the page to be redirected then smartly brought here is the back-door deletion of an article. I would add that we are reluctant to delete redirects, as here, which have a substantial page history. Bridgeplayer (talk) 09:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to think I'm being devious for bringing it here (AGF anyone?). It ended up here because Twinkle sends redirects to RfD. Whether the deletion is discussed here or there is not important. The question remains the same. Pichpich (talk) 13:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarification, I am not suggesting that you are in any way being devious and if you read that into my remarks I apologise. I am commenting on the process, which I don't like but, I acknowledge, others might find fine. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is actually possible to retire 28 straight batters in baseball, if two opposing pitchers both pitch perfect games past the ninth inning. For the purposes of the game of baseball, Mr. Galarraga didn't do this - he will be credited with retiring 26 hitters, allowing one to reach base, and then retiring a 27th hitter. Of course, the fact is that he achieved a perfect game in every respect except for bad officiating, but we still must not misrepresent things. As to the article vs. redirect issue, I don't think this is a big deal; if it went to AfD, it would be deleted either as not actually being a list, or as duplicative of Armando Galarraga's near-perfect game. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It actually would be possible to retire 28 straight batter in a nine-inning baseball game, if the outs were miscounted and in one inning the other team were allowed a fourth out. Compare Fifth down. But Galarraga didn't retire 28 straight batters (nor 27 straight), and no one would ever think he had. This was created as an incredibly POINTy and POV "list" and it remains a POINTy, misleading, and useless redirect.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Having ruminated on this, and considered the above comments, much as I dislike back-door deletions I agree that this should be an exception since even if it went to AFD it would inevitably be deleted so that would be an unnecessarily bureaucratic option. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete – This is one-sided POV-fluff about someone's frustration about a blown call. Besides, why would we have such a list or redirect for something like this? (i.e. what if we had List of African-American U.S. Presidents or List of NCAA Men's Basketball coaches who won 10 or more national championships?) –MuZemike 16:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

James H. "Buck" Harless[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 retarget to James H. Harless. Nomination withdrawn. Bridgeplayer (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another from a sockpuppet of banned User:Mac, indef blocked for, among other things, pointless redirects. There is no mention of James H. "Buck" Harless in the target article, nor does Google reveal him to have played any role in Massey. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to James H. Harless where it states he was a director of Massey Energy. This is sourced here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I think the "Buck" thing threw off my Google results. Do I have the right to just withdraw this and retarget immediately? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Leakin Park[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 retarget to Windsor Mill Road#Parks for the moment. Sebwite is welcome to convert this to an article. JohnCD (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Leakin Park is a park in Baltimore. The redirect, however, goes to a nonexistent section of an article on the road that runs adjacent to the park. Though this fact is mentioned in the article, I doubt someone looking for information on the park would expect or want to be redirected in such a manner. Tckma (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Windsor Mill Road#Parks which provides useful information on this park. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to an article, perhaps a stub at the very least, on the park. The park has some notability; I have come across info on it before. I have not researched it a lot, but I can look into it in the coming days. Sebwite (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bunch of academic journals[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 except for those restored to articles. It is more user friendly to let people know upfront we don't have information on a topic then to send them somewhere, which gives them the expectation that we do, and leave them scratching their heads. Red links are not bad. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all These are redirects to publishing giants which contain no information, or nearly none, about these journals. Completely unhelpful to the reader, and will make him/her waste time. If better targets are discovered during the course of this RfD, simply update the redirect and remove them from the RfD list. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 19:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went through a bunch of publishers and check all the redirects for all of them. It's possible that I missed one or two, but I should have gotten 99% of them. Also, I've tagged all redirects with {{rfd}}, so fans of process need not worry. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 01:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Headbomb, it's only annoying to get redirected like that. Narayanese (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have alerted the creator who is still active since his/her views my be significant. It would also be helpful if the nominator would {{rfd}} tag the pages concerned. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nominator. However, it's out-of-process until the redirects are tagged. (None of the tools/bots in my collection will do this properly. AWB should be able to do it, but I haven't found a mode in which it doesn't follow the redirects.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, and for the obvious reason that all these redirect pages should be journal articles in their own right (per notability, etc., etc.) Perhaps as a group we can agree that tagging each redirect is not necessary in this case. Personally, I don't think it is necessary because these are a block of pages with the same problem. It almost a routine maintenance or a technical deletion similar to "G6" in speed delete - imho. Thanks for lending me your ear. ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -I agree that most of these redirects can readily deleted. However, a few are articles that were redirected. Deleting these as redirects is a form of back-door deletion which should be avoided since it doesn't allow assessment of notability. I have restored and prodded these pages which will bring them to a wider audience:
  • Biomarker Insights
  • Cancer Informatics
  • Evolutionary Bioinformatics
  • Drug Target Insights
  • Clinical Medicine: Oncology
  • Bioinformatics and Biology Insights Bridgeplayer (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is a back door deletion? I don't see this term in the guidelines or policies? ----Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as redirects, expand the possible ones into articles, and deal with others individually. The proper term for most of these is exemplified by the template Template:Redirect with possibilities -- see Template talk:R with possibilities and Category:Redirects with possibilities Some of these titles, such as the Libertas publication Drug Target Insights, are not conceivably notable as yet, and it appropriate to list them under the name of the publisher. Others, such as the onefor British Journal of Nutrition, are well known journals about which a substantial article can be written. And some are simply title abbreviations where we do have a proper target, e.g. Med Hypotheses is the abbreviation for Medical Hypotheses--that these are included in the list shows the need for dealing with them individually with due care. the relevant policy is WP:BEFORE -- that a redirect is an appropriate intermediate place, and that our policy is not "article of nothing".
The term "back door deletions" informally refers to the process of inconspicuously removing all traces of an article by first merging it or converting it to a redirect, which is an editorial decision and can be done BOLDly, and then removing the redirect. It is usually not a good way to do things.
The conversion during the course of this discussion of a few of the redirects back into articles is in my opinion inappropriate and confusing, but the simplest way of handling it will be to discuss them individually later; to permit this, I have removed the prods on those from which the prods had not already been removed by other editors. I intend to list each one of them later at AfD, and we can discuss the status of the individual separate journals, which may not all be the same. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Japanese manga[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Manga" means "Japanese comics", so using the term "Japanese manga" is redundent and is an impossible search term. —Farix (t | c) 14:01, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - nomination does not meet the criteria for deletion. This is a foreseeable search term (not everyone knows that the phrase is tautological) - see here. Harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Korean manga redirects to Manhwa so I see no problem with Japanese manga redirecting to Manga (general term) Worldwide I can see someone looking up the term on wikipedia. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plausible search term, regardless of whether or not "Japanese" is redundant. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yea, plausible search term even if it's a tautology. Note we have loads of manga articles with written Japanese manga in the lead. We have to live with such inaccuracy. --KrebMarkt 16:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Definitely a plausible search term, especially for readers who are unclear on the distinction between manga, manhua, and manhwa (which are at root all the same word, after all). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible search term. With "world manga", it's quite possible that someone may wish to research "Japanese manga". --Malkinann (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Scrubs[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. JohnCD (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I check the "What links here" page, for pages that link to the word "Scrubs", ALL of the disambiguous links are intended for the TV series article, but they are redirecting people to the disambiguation page Scrub instead. This has been and will continue to be an ongoing problem until the redirect is changed. I have fixed all of the current errors, but people are continuing to make references to the TV show in articles, by linking to the word Scrubs instead of to Scrubs (TV series). I know that there has been a debate about the primary topic for the word "Scrubs", and I'm not proposing to change the title of the TV series article. But for Wikipedia to be accurate, a redirect should point to the article that most people intend it to point to, and in fixing disambiguous links to the word "Scrubs", ALL of them are referring to Scrubs (TV series). Fixing this redirect would prevent everyone from having to go through the disambiguation page first, before they get to the article about the TV show. And anyone who doubts that the vast majority of searches for "Scrubs" are looking for the TV show, should check out this page from time to time, so that other editors like myself are not constantly fixing errors like these: [1] [2] [3] [4] I can't be the only editor concerned about this, and someone needs to eliminate the source of these errors before they build up again. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose retargetting to Scrubs (TV series) "Every time I check the "What links here" page..." is something you keep saying[5][6] but it's not true unless you don't look at the page much. As has been pointed out at the discussion on the redirect's talk page, there were such errors but you've fixed them. Future errors may occur but with the cancellation of Scrubs (TV series), the likelihood of such errors occurring in the future is much, much lower than it was. When such errors do occur they should be fixed rather than letting the redirect catch them. It has been agreed in several discussions that the primary use of "Scrubs" is the medical garment, not the TV series and this is even more the case now that the program has been cancelled. As I said in my most recent post in the discussion at Talk:Scrubs#Requested redirect,[7] if we were to retarget this redirect anywhere it would be to Scrubs (clothing), in which case people looking for the TV series would have another link to go through. For the people linking to Scrubs instead of Scrubs (TV series), leaving this redirect as it is remains the most logical outcome of this discussion. Consensus at Talk:Scrubs (TV series)/Archive 3#Requested move was that Scrubs (TV series) should not be moved to Scrubs yet changing this redirect to direct to Scrubs (TV series) would effectively go against the consensus. The incomplete discussion at Talk:Scrubs#Requested redirect was also heading towards consensus not to change the redirect until you opened the discussion here. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did not move the discussion here with the intention of forum shopping. As was pointed out in the discussion at Talk:Scrubs#Requested redirect, I did not use the proper method there for calling attention to this problem. Therefore, I left the discussion on that talk page for 7 days per Wikipedia policy, and you were the only person who opposed it before I moved it to this location. I understand what you are saying about the consensus not to change the title of Scrubs (TV series), but I do not believe that constantly having to monitor the WhatLinksHere page for errors is a proper solution. Before you re-posted your opposition here, I notice that you fixed this, this, and this error, which just proves my point that the problem with links to the TV show is ongoing. If left unchecked, it will only lead to the disambiguation page appearing on this list again. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"you were the only person who opposed it" - Not so.[8][9] I never said the problem wouldn't be ongoing. People make incorrect links to articles all the time. It isn't necessary to monitor Special:WhatLinksHere/Scrubs. People following the incorrect link will end up at Scrub which includes a link to the correct article. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am not convinced that retargeting is a good idea since there is no consensus that the TV show is the prime use. I have changed the target in the nomination since it should point to the existing target not a desired retargeting. I have fixed one link that should go to the TV series that was missed. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retargetting The TV series is not the primary usage. It is the medical clothing. This has been discussed at the recent requested move Talk:Scrubs#Requested move, the discussion on the dab page Talk:Scrub#scrubS_should_undoubtably_redirect, and the requested move at the TV show Talk:Scrubs_(TV_series)/Archive_3#Requested_move. 76.66.193.224 (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um... I'd say that it should redirect to Scrubs (clothing), with a dab hatnote at the top. -- Bobyllib (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I oppose this because there's really no problem. Mistargetted wikilinks are usually disambiguated within a reasonable period of time. As Bobyllib pointed out above, the likely primary usage of the term "scrubs" would be the hospital clothing. The only reason the television show has any traction is because of Wikipedia's systemic bias. --NormanEinstein (talk) 18:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Srubs should be directed to a scrubs disambiguation page where the viewer is free to choose where to go from there. The (TV show) and (clothing) would not normally be typed in by a viewer of the pages. If for example someone hears about "doctors' scrubs" they might not know it was clothing or "have you ever watched scrubs" I do not think that any person entering that as a search would add TV in their search.
It seems that we are moving away from simple "helping the reader" features into more of a battle of "My use is better than yours"
As for incorrect linking it is clear that people who make mistakes like this need correcting and there are many people out there who incorrectly link. It is not a valid argument to say the page should be changed because there are lots of incorrect links. Once those links are fixed then they should not reoccur, especially if it is the same editors over and over and attention is drawn to their errors
Chaosdruid (talk) 13:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We should not make decisions based on whether or not people make mistakes or disobey the rules. What next, if enough people commit rape, it will be made legal? --Xatanix death metal (talk) 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm ambivalent about this redirect - actually, I think it should probably be left as it is - but I just have to say that comment is the most absurd comparison I've seen on Wikipedia in some time. Please try to keep a sense of perspective, and don't compare your fellow editors to rapists. Thank you. Robofish (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hyoyeon (entertainer)[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 moot - retargeted by nominator so there is nothing to decide. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title. It seems Hyoyeon is a person and not the Girls' Generation band. Also Hyoyeon has no article page of her own. EunSoo (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted back her page from history. EunSoo (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hyoyeon (Korean entertainer)[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 moot - boldly retargeted by Dr. Crisp so there is nothing to decide. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong title. It seems Hyoyeon is a person and not the Girls' Generation band. Also Hyoyeon has no article page of her own. EunSoo (talk) 08:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted back her page from history. EunSoo (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Music Video Producers Hall of Fame[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous purpose of this redirect, no apparent relation to its target. — ξxplicit 08:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - meaningless redirect created by now indefinitely blocked user. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bet Hall Of Fame[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous purpose of this redirect, no apparent relation to its target. — ξxplicit 08:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - meaningless redirect created by now indefinitely blocked user. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Redirectinglinks[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous purpose of this redirect, no apparent relation to its target. — ξxplicit 08:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2012thefilm[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous purpose of this redirect, no apparent relation to its target. — ξxplicit 08:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2012the0ne[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous purpose of this redirect, no apparent relation to its target. — ξxplicit 08:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2013themovie[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous purpose of this redirect, no apparent relation to its target. — ξxplicit 08:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

2014thesong[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous purpose of this redirect. — ξxplicit 08:17, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mrbuffalosoldier[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the slightest idea why this redirect was created, but it's unclear as to how it relates to its target. — ξxplicit 08:14, 3 June 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_June_3&oldid=1148047937"