Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 9, 2011

CRABCORE[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. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Target doesn't even mention the term, and genre doesn't even exist, just a term which is only used to mock a single band, Attack Attack!. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I edited Attack! Attack! on your post and made it Attack Attack! The one with two exclamation points is an entirely different band. --KЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 01:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Absalom (The X-Files)[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. The reasons given for deleting are not in line with the guideline at WP:RFD#HARMFUL, whereas the reasons for keeping are. As between keep and retarget to This Is Not Happening, there is one !vote for each, with no particular reason given for preferring one or the other. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This seems pretty useless to me - before today, it existed only as one link from This Is Not Happening, and redirects to a character list which does not even contain mention of the character concerned. Ordinarily this would just mean there's an information hole needing filled, but this character appeared in exactly one episode of the relevent television series, and was not even particularly important when they did - clearly not meeting the "three appearances or more" guideline on the page being redirected to. Having delinked the only instance of the redirect, and under the safe assumption that it's not going to be a common search team (and on the off-chance it is, results for a search will still net the episode page), I can't see any reason for this page staying. GRAPPLE X 21:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above--Breawycker (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The character is mentioned on the target page (though currently only as a passing reference in the section titled Jeremiah Smith). With the disambiguation paranthetical, I see little or no chance of confusion. It may be an orphan, but in an ideal world, all redirects would be orphans. That's not a reason to delete a redirect. Is there a showing of harm or confusion? Without that, policy says we should keep such redirects. They really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 02:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to This Is Not Happening, the episode that featured the character. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suspect Bosnian training camp[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. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is no logical reason to link Bosnian training camp to Afghan training camp, and the target makes no mention of Bosnia or Bosnians. Fram (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There's no apparent reason for the redirect, making it potentially misleading. This was created as a redirect so it's not a product of merger either. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

3,7-dihydro-1,3,7-trimethyl-1H-purine-2,6-dione[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. I would have gone for delete, but the consensus is clear. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just completely ridiculous. Lanthanum-138 (talk) 09:07, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, with over 90,000 hits excluding Wikipedia this "invented" name for caffeine is significantly notable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is one of the more widely recognized chemical names for caffiene and a perfectly legitimate redirect. As Thryduulf points out, this is an "inverted" name (actually, I think this might be the uninverted variant) but variations in such chemical names are common and both are legitimate. See here for more on the evolving naming conventions for organic chemicals. Rossami (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very unlikely that someone will correctly type out this name in full. 173.26.237.244 (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I wouldn't type it either. However, I copy/paste things like this all the time. Rossami (talk)
  • Keep - serves as a reference. I imagine this to be useful for chemistry students and their ilk, looking up a chemical name of that form to find out what it is. GRAPPLE X 01:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's simply ludicrous to suggest that the IUPAC name for a chemical should be deleted. 184.144.161.207 (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Love Again (John Denver album)[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. Redirects are cheap. However, it is worth pointing out that CSD R3 is for "redirects from implausible typos or misnomers", not just for typos. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tagged it {{db-r3}} because it's an implausible typo. Someone removed the tag and suggested I take it to RfD... so here I am. The article already has a namespace. No one is going to do a search for "Love Again (John Denver album)", it's a redirect that doesn't have any purpose. I thought most redirects that are this super-disambiguated are deleted after a page move. Or maybe I'm wrong. Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vejvančický, of course it's had 125 views in the past 30 days, I just removed all the backlinks yesterday. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a very useful redirect. Firstly, with a name like "Love Again" it's not an unlikely guess that there will be another album by this name (hence premptively adding further disambiguation) but at least two other of John Denver's albums are at titles with the "(John Denver album)" disambiguator (Rhymes & Reasons (John Denver album) and Back Home Again (John Denver album) meaning that it is logical to look for other of his albums with the same title. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is further evidence that the wording of CSD criterion R3 has become unworkably vague and misunderstood. This is not even a typo, much less an implausible one. The article was first created at this title, then moved to bring the page into compliance with the (somewhat fluid and ever-changing) naming conventions. It was deliberately created at that title in good faith. That action can be mistaken but is clearly not a "typo". The redirect is not misleading and helps to document the pagemove. Keep and we really need to reconsider R3. Rossami (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now if that is the case, then I have been essentially deleting these types of redirects for over a year incorrectly. I thought an "implausible typo" could also mean that the chances of someone typing "John Denver album" in the search field, accidentally, was impossible. Because by the time someone types "Love Ag...", the album appears (although currently, the redirect appears first). In short, I thought this was all to help Wikipedia be that much more efficient. Anyway, if this is an incorrect use of criterion R3, then it's not a problem to stop from this point forth! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The search box is only one way of navigating Wikipedia - most of the other methods do not have suggestions and redirects help people who search using these other methods, and also aid accidental linking. The way you've been using R3 is very wrong - "typo" means "typographical error" (e.g. Love Again (album)) or Love Ahain (album)). The "implausible" qualifier is to exclude things like common misspellings (e.g. Milennium). Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, haha. Well, in my defense, this doesn't say much for the admins who easily deleted the redirects either. But consider this case closed! Thanks for your clarifications. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:12, 9 February 2011 (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/2011_February_9&oldid=1091633078"