Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 6, 2012

Template:Bookrationale[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 11:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Blue-ray Disc rationale[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 11:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused . Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Billy Cundiff's missed kick at end of 2012 AFC Championship 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 Implausible redirect, no non trivial elements of page history that I can see. --Salix (talk): 15:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012_February_5#Wide left in which the creator attempted to compromise the discussion by moving Wide left to this title. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an entirely implausible redirect, and a blatant attempt at evasion. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 18:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Jesus tapdancing Christ let it go already, no one is going to use that awkwardly verbose line to as a search term. Plausibility is out the window, as well as patience; this user goes to WP:ANI for tendentious behavior if another variation of this craps up again anywhere. Tarc (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not an implausible redirect term. This actually describes what that section of the article is about. This falls under WP:R#KEEP provisions 1, 3, and 5. #1 says "They have a potentially useful page history" which this does. The edit history is fully verifiable too. #3 says "They aid searches on certain terms" which this does. #5 says "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful—this is not because the other person is being untruthful, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways," and this is an example of that too. Those calling for deletion may not find it useful, but I might. Redirect are cheap, and no one has shown any demonstrated Harm this redirect causes to Wikipedia at all. This fits none of the criteria listed under WP:R#DELETE, so therefore, there is no actual policy that says this can be deleted.
So far, as the first "keep" here, I have cited actually policies and guidelines favoring a keep of this. None of the deletes so far have cited any policies and guidelines favoring deletion, just the fact that they are "impatient" or that they view this as "evasion." If all the remaining deletes take that route, no matter how many deletes there are, policy trumps vote count, which means this would have to be a keep. Hellno2 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hellno, no one, and I mean no one, is ever going to search for this exact phrase without some prior knowledge that it exists. Nobody. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: See WP:MAD. CallawayRox (talk) 20:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Eagles 24/7 made a unilateral decision to delete the edit history without a discussion to do so. I don't know where to bring this up, but this does warrant some discussion. I don't want to make the situation more chaotic while these and a discussion for wide left are going on simultaneously, but this may be something that has to be brought up in a deletion review or something. Hellno2 (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Without a discussion"? It was discussed at length here. Good luck with a DRV. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Eagles says, that point was discussed ad nauseam at the AfD, and the consensus was clear to the admin: delete. Yes, he restored the history for you, but he has also been online for minimal periods as of late and probably a) didn't remember the exact situation (you didn't refer to the closing decision in your request) b) didn't have time to do a full, or even brief research. I'm sure he explain when he gets online. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 23:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I would say unlikely, but not implausable that someone would type this in looking for the kick. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close with no consensus: we can speculate on plausibility of this redirect, but we have no stats yet. I suggest re-nominating it right now for April, when we'll have a month of clean stats to judge upon. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh my gosh, the bureaucracy! Ok, Hellno created an article (Wide left). It was AfD'd and deleted. He unilaterally created the redirect, and then asked the closing admin to restore the history behind it. This was done, even though the admin later said it should not have been done. The new redirect (with the history) was RfD'd, and when it became clear that it would be deleted (as it has been), he moved it again to this title. He doesn't care about the redirect. It's just the history Hellno has been trying to save, and this runs blatantly against the AfD. If for some reason this redirect is kept, will the admin delete the history? Nolelover Talk·Contribs 16:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is a wrong forum for this discussion: the redirect is either needed or not, regardless of the previously existing article. Why don't you raise the topic of AfD and restored revisions at WP:AN/I? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:R#KEEP. Czarkoff is right. As far as this RFD discussion goes, nothing in the past should matter. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Articles to merge[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) 21:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect, not even a shortcut. No reader will be interested in our maintenance category, and editors can use one of the actual shortcuts such as CAT:MERGE. Unfortunately, WP:CSD#R2 doesn't apply to main→Category redirects. Anomie⚔ 16:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Dəmi Lovato[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 speedily deleted G7 by User:Fastily. (Non-admin closure). ApprenticeFan work 06:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely search term as most people would just search 'Demi Lovato' not 'Dəmi Lovato' JayJayTalk to me 02:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

So random! season 3[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 11:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Random does not even have a second season so there would be no reason to suggest this redirect would be needed. JayJayTalk to me 01:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_6&oldid=1160871478"