Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 2, 2011

WorldNutDaily[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. Fails WP:RNEUTRAL. Ruslik_Zero 19:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - non-encyclopedic humor. Rostz (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:RNEUTRAL specifies that an established term be referenced by "multiple mainstream reliable sources", for which I have found no evidence; this term tends to be used by (sneering) non-mainstream sources, mainly blogs and forum commenters. Rostz (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Baseball Players who have Hit Homers on their First Major League Pitch[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 the first and Keep the second. Ruslik_Zero 07:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects are leftovers from two page moves which are preserved in the page history of the target article (see diff). The redirects have no unique and significant page history and are not plausible search terms. Also, because the article existed at the first title for 4 minutes and at the second title for 9 minutes, and this was more than four years ago, there is virtually no chance that deletion will break any internal or external links. The second redirect is basically unused but the first does receive some traffic, most likely because it appears in the search drop-down list when one types "Baseball player"; it can be replaced with Baseball players who have hit a home run on their first Major League Baseball pitch, which employs proper grammar and capitalization and, thus, can be linked from within mainspace without piping. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Scotus link[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 19:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan redirect to orphan template Template:SCOTUS link that is also proposed for deletion under TfD, see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 2. TJRC (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Conditional delete iff the target page is deleted at TfD. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously, this decision should wait until the XfD on the Target page is completed but if the target is kept, then this redirect should also be kept as a capitalization variant, an encouraged use of redirects. Rossami (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even assuming the target is kept, this redirect should be removed. It is unused; and points to a template that, even if not deleted, is unused. Capitalization/spelling variants are appropriate redirects in article space (where they may be searched for or linked to), but not in the template namespace. TJRC (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep target exists, and templates frequently have alternate capitalizations as redirects. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Playlist[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 19:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect from Wikipedia: space to User: space. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The traffic statistics show that this redirect has been used about 20 times per month since it's creation. It may be appropriate to delete but I don't think you can call it "unused". Rossami (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gas log splitter[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 Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was created recently as a spammy no-content fork/duplication of Log splitter. Although rightly converted to a redir by another editor to tidy up immediately, really we ought to delete it. There is no useful justfication for this to exist as a redir. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It was a fork with little content but I found nothing spam-like about the overwritten page. There were no references to any brand, model or type nor was the content advertising-like in tone. It was a new-user stub. The redirect serves to politely point that new user back to the original page where his/her contributions will be more helpful. The redirect will also serve to quietly preempt the re-creation of the fork. In the meantime, it presents no possibility of confusion or harm to readers. Redirects are cheap and we are explicitly told not to "tidy up" redirects just for the sake of tidying. Rossami (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • By "spammy" I mean two sentences, with an embedded URL to a single company site of the same name as the username. That's pretty spammy, even before considering WP:EL.
      Whilst not wishing to start a crusade to "tidy up" redirs for being of dubious usefulness, nor should we support the rampant creation of new article titles under every possible (rather than usefully credible) variant. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't even notice that external link and certainly hadn't followed it to see the connection to the SPA-username. For spam, that's surprisingly subtle. Thank you for catching it. I agree that in a perfect world, that page should never have been created. Now that it has, I still prefer redirect over deletion because it preempts re-creation and leaves a "paper"-trail in case others need to investigate the user's behavior. Rossami (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at the very least we should delete the first two spam-revisions for the pagehistory. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is a valid search term, and per wp:CHEAP there is no need to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tideflat (talk • contribs) 02:31, 13 March 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_March_2&oldid=1140134252"