Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 26, 2011

Zoe tattarsall[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 (non-admin closure) —GƒoleyFour— 23:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo Ooh, Fruity @ Ooh, Chatty 22:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is typo, but it doesn't look like an implausible one to me, and it's getting page views so evidently it isn't implausible to other's either. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a capitalization variant, not even a typo. Capitalization variants are not only accepted but a preferred use of redirects. Also, the redirect contains attribution history of the (multiple) title changes until the content was finally moved to the current page. Rossami (talk) 05:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is acutally a typo (or spelling error at least) - "tattarsall" vs "Tattersall". Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1898 Iowa Hawkeyes football team[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 (non-admin closure) —GƒoleyFour— 00:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only non-notable Iowa football team page that redirects to Iowa Hawkeyes football, should not have a redirect. Iowa13 (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep, it seems as though there will be at some point in the future an article covering the period including 1898, and articles/redirects exit for other years so I don't see a reason to delete this. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though not necessarily keep-as-is. This page was at one point targetted to Iowa Hawkeyes football from 1889 to 1897. That page was rewritten to a narrower scope and 1898 was not included. I can't find an existing article covering that next decade but it seems that the editors working on the topic intend to flesh it out sooner or later. History of Iowa Hawkeyes football might be a better target in the meantime, though I could also make an argument for List of Iowa Hawkeyes football seasons. Rossami (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

El Tony Syn[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Person doesn't appear to even exist. Sceptre (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. His existence doesn't appear to be verifiable, let alone his association with this band. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gunmetal Angel says this singer has been announced as the new singer for DragonForce in Q, but I couldn't find any information on Google, neither on Q's website. Victão Lopes I hear you... 01:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing on DragonForce's website either. It notes that the audition for a new singer is closed, but doesn't say who was successful. Thryduulf (talk) 02:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jasmine china[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vague redirect. Readers may be looking for species of Jasminum polyanthum Jasmine plants that grow in China. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only two things making any significant impact on Google searches for this term are an apparently non-notable adventure tours company and a non-notable Chinese restaurant in Salt Lake City, Utah. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the article on the Jasmine flower instead, which currently appears to be the more likely search topic long term. If these protests become larger and commonly known by this name, we can change it later.--Danaman5 (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : A person with 'Jasmine in China' will be more likely to be intersted in the article, as if he/she is interested in flower then he/she will use the city name instead of 'china' to search for flowers. The number of persons interested in this article will be many many times multiple than those interested in flowers, at this particular time especially. Is The Chinese government banning the search for Jasmine flower ?????????????????? --Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 13:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentI would like to comment that anything with Jasmine on the english wiki is not blocked in China, otherwise I am in some kind of weird dream right now.Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The search for 'Jasmine' on Chinese search engines is banned and doesn't show results, the SMS with 'jasmine' word also don't go through--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing to do with the flower, or the tea, or Jasmine patterns on china/porcelain. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep marginal but contains names likely to be used in searches for the 2011 protests. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that's what the search function is for. There is no need for a redirect to exist for that reason. May I remind you that a search function does exist on Wikipedia. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • While Wikiepdia does have an internal search function, this is far from the only way that people find Wikipedia articles and redirects help a great many people find the articles they are looking for using these other methods. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a highly misleading redirect. If it should exist, it should be a disambiguation page, since the current target has nothing to do with jasmine patterned china, Jasmine tea in China, or Jasmine (plant) in China. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jasmine revolution china[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 (non-admin closure) —GƒoleyFour— 00:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "revolution" is inappropriate, and a serious POV issue. Such wording implies that there has been a successful regime overthrow, which is definitely not the case. inb4 WP:CRYSTALBALL arguments by the creator -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, rightly or wrongly "jasmine revolution" is term that is being used for the Chinese protests. Redirects do not endorse that term or title and non-neutral redirects are permitted - see WP:RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Thryduulf, contigent on the 2011 Chinese protests article being kept. If that article is deleted in the AFD, redirect this to the relevant section of the overall Middle East protest article instead.--Danaman5 (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is clearly related to the article and the calls are for jasmine revoltuion,
  • Keep, it is 100% clear that the '2011 Chinese protests' is the content that 'Jasmine revolution in China' refers to. The article itself should be named 'Jasmine revolution in China'--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • commentThat was its name before the AfD discussion, it changed for a reason.Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it is not 100% clear, otherwise there wouldn't even be a RfD. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a word-order variant of China's Jasmine revolution which is being discussed below, you could argue that the decision here should follow the decision of that discussion. This one is a bit less straight-forward, however, since "Jasmine revolution china" is not grammatically correct and helps readers neither through the search engine nor through conventional linking. This redirect should not have been created. That leaves me at a very weak keep only because deletion would add another trivial record to the database and not be worth cleaning out. Rossami (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although "revolution" is just wishful thinking. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Chinese jasmine revolution[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 (non-admin closure) —GƒoleyFour— 00:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "revolution" is inappropriate, and a serious POV issue. Such wording implies that there has been a successful regime overthrow, which is definitely not the case. inb4 WP:CRYSTALBALL arguments by the creator -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, rightly or wrongly "jasmine revolution" is term that is being used for the Chinese protests. Redirects do not endorse that term or title and non-neutral redirects are permitted - see WP:RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Thryduulf, contigent on the 2011 Chinese protests article being kept. If that article is deleted in the AFD, redirect this to the relevant section of the overall Middle East protest article instead.--Danaman5 (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article is the content that a searcher looking for with these keywords.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a capitalization variant of China's Jasmine revolution which is being discussed below, the decision here should follow the decision of that discussion. (My own opinion is, again, "keep" ber Thryduulf.) Rossami (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although "revolution" is just wishful thinking. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

China's Jasmine revolution[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "revolution" is inappropriate, and a serious POV issue. Such wording implies that there has been a successful regime overthrow, which is definitely not the case. inb4 WP:CRYSTALBALL arguments by the creator -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, rightly or wrongly "jasmine revolution" is term that is being used for the Chinese protests. Redirects do not endorse that term or title and non-neutral redirects are permitted - see WP:RNEUTRAL. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Thryduulf, contigent on the 2011 Chinese protests article being kept. If that article is deleted in the AFD, redirect this to the relevant section of the overall Middle East protest article instead.--Danaman5 (talk) 12:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The article is the content that a searcher looking for with these keywords.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contingent on the AfD of the target page, keep per Thryduulf's arguments. Rossami (talk) 22:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirect to npov name User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A redirect does not imply that the indirect name is to be encouraged (exceptions are probably abbreviations, which are probably "accepted", which is weaker than "encouraged"). The instructions when moving a page say AFAIR that links to the indirect name should be converted to links to the direct name, even if the rendered version is kept constant - e.g. [[China's Jasmine revolution]] should be (at least) changed to [[China's Jasmine revolution|2011 Chinese protests]], and depending on NPOV etc issues, the indirect name can also be removed in the link. But the redirect should remain in case people accidentally (or during an NPOV dispute) keep linking to the indirect name. Boud (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Chinese protests[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 disambiguate (non-admin closure) —GƒoleyFour— 05:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vague redirect. Chinese people have been protesting against things since 4000BC. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Two sessions[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. This phrase is too vague. Ruslik_Zero 19:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vague redirect that does not match with the redirected article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: As the word 'jasmine' banned and censored in China. The protesters are using 'two sessions' as an alternative. Thus it is 100% linked to the article[1]--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • However the term is quite vague, that is, it can be confused with a wide number of other things that are termed similarly. For example, within the Australian Capital Territory, some instances of local governmental meetings can also be referred to as "two sessions". -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "Two sessions"(两会) is much more widely used in Chinese to refer to the yearly meetings of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (The meetings occur at the same time every year in early March, hence the shorthand). Since this shorthand will continue to be used every year to refer to the meetings of the two bodies, it makes no sense to create this redirect to this year's events of as yet unknown significance. It would be better to redirect to the already existing article Lianghui. This redirect has to go.--Danaman5 (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. It would seem sensible to have a page that says "Two sessions" usually refers collectively to the yearly meetings of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. It may also refer to 2011 Chinese protests" (if the latter is verifiable). Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • First of all, the fate of the 2011 Chinese protests article is currently unclear with the AFD ongoing. If it is deleted, a disambiguation page obviously won't make much sense. However, disambiguation pages are not generally used for just two articles anyway. Why don't we have "two sessions" redirect to Lianghui, and then put a mention of the protests in that article if need be?--Danaman5 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a disambiguation page would have to be several hundred entries to list all the possible pages this could apply to. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Search two sessions in Google [1] and google news [2] comes up with relatively few results about Lianghui, and it happened not long ago. Even less (I have found one) connects it to the protest thing. So I doubt we need this redirect for anything. It is almost unknown to be redirected to the protest and for Lianghui, people who know the name Two sessions probably know which sessions they are anyway.Zlqq2144 (talk) 05:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep checks out as Grass Mud Horse Lexicon, see http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2011/02/murong-xuecun-on-the-absurdities-of-chinese-censorship/ User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But GMH lexicon is not correct lexicon. Are you saying that GMH lexicon is more significant than a part of the government body of a country? Well, using the same logic you are using, I could argue that faggot be redirected to idiot or something, as according to 4chan lexicon, "faggot" means any person with a particular trait, which is included beforehand (for example, "amerifag" means someone from America, and "nvidiafag" is someone who owns a Nvidia video card), and does not specifically refer to homosexuals. Obviously, such a move wouldn't be acceptable on Wikipedia at all. So why use GMH lexicon here? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jasmine in China[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 as unlikely search term. Ruslik_Zero 18:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith misleading redirect. If a reader is, say, looking for information on selling Jasmine flowers in China, they are incorrectly redirected to a political article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:45, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : A person with 'Jasmine in China' will be more likely to be intersted in the article, as if he/she is interested in flower then he/she will use the city name instead of 'china' to search for flowers. The number of persons interested in this article will be many many times multiple than those interested in flowers, at this particular time especially --Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 06:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this has absolutely nothing to do with the distribution of Jasmine in China, or the distribution of Jasmine Tea in China, etc adinfinitum. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely syntax User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

2011 Chinese uprising[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect; POV violation. There were no "uprisings" in China during 2011 - dictionary definition of "uprising" does not match with the redirected article. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete, not for being a POV violation (see WP:RNEUTRAL) but because this term does not appear to be being used at present. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The dictionary states meaning of - up·ris·ing as: The act or an instance of rising or rising up. These acts and instances in China clearly show this is an uprising. In todays world the showing or getting together of masses online is equivalent to that showing in ground. There is no some without fire.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And who, may I ask, is rising up? About 5 people, out of a country of 1,300,000,000 people? Do you really call that an "uprising"? Also, please stop ruining the page formatting by adding unnecessary line breaks, please. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:36, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:CRYSTAL , WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, this is not an uprising. 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV is not a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects are not held to the same standard as article titles. That said, Thryduulf's argument about lack of use of the phrase and the anon's comment about WP:CRYSTAL are compelling. This redirect should not have been created. Rossami (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete over the top. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

China protests[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 Chinese protests. Ruslik_Zero 12:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vague redirect. An analogy would be to redirect "America attack" to September 11, 2001 attacks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:42, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needed redirect: A search for 'China protests' or 'Chinese protests' is not returning the current '2011 Chinese protests' the person searches. So this redirect is needed to guide the searcher to reach the page he/she is searching.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did you even bother to read what I said? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparantly not.Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you, the two words have other meaning also, but there are many many searches with this name to reach the article. I feel the need for this at this time, If community feels this redirect can be removed.--Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 07:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You forgot your </trollface>. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • We are not exactly Wikinews, Chinese protests can mean a lot of things. There have been numerous protests in China throughout history. many of them more notable than this one.Zlqq2144 (talk) 07:11, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Zlqq2144, not pressuring you to do something or anything, but a Delete !vote would really help, if that is what your intention was. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, fogot about thatZlqq2144 (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per #Chinese protests (one title should be the dab page, the other a redirect to it). This is a very likely search term but it is ambiguous. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: When an individual searches he doesn't type full words like 'chinese' he most likely useses 'China' only so this redirect is necessary to guide the person to the page he is searching. --Maheshkumaryadav (talk) 13:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes but the main point we are discussing is why redirecting it to 2011 protest? There have been numerous protests which are more notable than this one.Zlqq2144 (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dearest sir, are you capable of the most basic of comprehension in the English language? There is a level of competency required for contributors on the English Wikipedia. If English is your problem, then may I suggest becoming a contributor on one of the many other Wikipedia projects. Otherwise, please actually read what I have written above. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 13:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Really, we should only discuss this AFTER the AfD result comes out. There's no point doing it now. I mean, it might get deleted and whatever comes out of this discussion will be of no use, same applies with merging. Zlqq2144 (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate I fail to see how anyone could think China only has ever had the current very small protests the target article is about. Is the events that preceded the Boxer Rebellion fluff to be ignored? Or the protests of Confucians to the severity of the First Emperor?? 65.93.15.125 (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've disambiguated the redirect. (I'm also okay with Retarget to Chinese protests as well--Lenticel (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Chinese protests which would be the correct grammatical variant. Subsequent keep/delete should follow the decision about that page. Rossami (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be deleted or redirected to a disambiguation page, Chinese protests. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Chinese protests disambiguation. Wiki only needs one, and it should go to either term, whatever is better MOS. MMetro (talk) 23:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ http://behindthewall.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/02/24/6120879-chinese-play-with-words-to-get-around-great-firewall-?pc=25&sp=25
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_26&oldid=1138533904"