Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 28, 2012

Wikiwack[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 18:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think neither Wikiwack nor Wickywhack are a plausible names for Methamphetamine, and neither are mentioned in the target article. I can find no source to support these names. Relevant Google search results all seem to be sites that mirror Wikipedia or use the words to mean something different. (Note: 'Wickywhack' was previously refused speedy deletion under CSD A1.) – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 00:12, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom's findings. Man, if only this was an WP shortcut...--Lenticel (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per rationale in Wickywhack's edit summary given upon creation. This is a rather weak keep for Wikiwhack, as it might be simply a reflection on WikiWiki name genesis applied to the Wickywhack. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete virtually no google hits 9,890, 318 respectively indicate these are not popular street names. --Salix (talk): 13:23, 9 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.

Scarabiasis[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 formal keep: not a redirect any more. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the target article does not mention scarabiasis Lophotrochozoa (talk) 22:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close I've made it into a stub. It's not something for the faint of heart :).--Lenticel (talk) 02:23, 30 January 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.

Wikipedia:FPC/Rainforest walk delist[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--Salix (talk): 13:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to an old and unimportant discussion. I can't see any reason why it would still be used, but I notice it every time I type "WP:FPC" into the search bar. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 January 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.

Daily Consumer Price Index[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 18:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not commonly used for that concept, AND commonly used for other concepts. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • (1) Kindly indicate what other concepts the Daily Consumer Price Index term is commonly used for. (2) Would Daily Index Ratio be acceptable? Treasury Direct states Daily Index Ratio. It is clear that Treasury Direct refers to the Daily Consumer Price Index Ratio and when the reference is not actually to the ratio, but, the index, the terminology would be Daily Consumer Price Index. Therefore I think it would be reasonable to accept the term Daily Consumer Price Index since it is actually used as such in the biggest economy in the world.ChangingPrices (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    1. It should be uncapitalized as descriptive (minor).
    2. It could refer to any daily CPI statistic, not necessarily the official one in Chile.
    If you can write an article about the general concept, mentioning the one in Chile, it might be appropriate, although it would probably fail WP:DICTDEF. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it should be uncapitalized. It does refer to any CPI. Do we thus agree that there is a term "daily consumer price index" being used in the US economy and that we can add it to these Wikipedia articles?ChangingPrices (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
    May I suggest writing the article, using reliable sources, before adding links. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don´t want to write an article about it. I have given a reliable source: Treasury Direct.ChangingPrices (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The source could only be used in the article, not to support the (incorrect) redirect. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete could refer to a number of other CPI's. Could potentially redirect to Consumer price index but if deleted search should take you there anyway.--Salix (talk): 13:34, 9 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.

Navene Koperweis[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. Redirect is now an article anyway.--Salix (talk): 13:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make way for a new article (clear the reg) Λeternus (talk) 11:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite sure exactly what's being requested here...if you'd like to start an article on Navene Koperweis, just go ahead and do so, deleting the redirect is not necessary.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • here is your way for a new article. cheers--Der Golem (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for pagehistory. No objection to an overwrite with article content if sufficient independent notability can be demonstrated through reliable sources. (Note that the current content does not meet that threshold in my opinion. But that will be a matter for a future AfD if the page is not improved in a reasonable period of time.) Rossami (talk) 03:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: overwriting redirect is a non-admin action, no need for RfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:16, 8 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.

Go endgame[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 per TimBentley--Salix (talk): 13:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Yose article has been merged and both these redirects have had all their 1 and 0 (not sure which had which) links redirected already. All the Yose links have been redirected to the merge destination as well. I think this is sufficient reason to delete them. PatheticCopyEditor (talk) 07:28, 28 January 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.

Muammar bin Mohammad bin Abdussalam bi Humayd bin Abu Manyar bin Humayd bin Nayil al Fuhsi Gaddafi[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 18:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely implausible redirect. No one would type that whole thing out in order to try and find him. Jeancey (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had to comment on this as I was actually astonished to read it - I can't believe that's even his full name! I haven't seen anything to suggest his name is any longer than Muammar Muhammad Abu Minyar Gaddafi (or a variant of it), so I wouldn't be surprised if it was thought up by whoever created the redirect. QueenCake (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too implausible. The missing "n" from the third "bin" is the cherry on top. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Too long to be plausible. And I don't see any evidence he was known under this name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:20, 8 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.

Shuttle Leadership Model (SLM)[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 speedily. Peridon (talk) 15:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirection (originally created as a copy-and-paste duplicate of Shuttle Leadership Model; changed to redirection) ZZArch talk to me 01:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as redirect pointing at a deleted target, so tagged.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 28 January 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.

Chalnessa Eames[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 formal keep: not a redirect any more. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Find a better target, or delete. I can't find anything about Eames in Wikipedia or http://www.pnb.org/Artists/ Certes (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, changing my opinion because the page has improved since being listed. Certes (talk) 12:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - There seem to be many of these redirects in the ballet wikipedia world. Besides showing where a dancer once danced or currently dances, I don't think they are very useful (and when dancers move, the redirects sometimes end up going in endless circles, with no desination). It would probably be more useful to simply have an article written for each person if they pass notability. Dkreisst (talk) 05:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Dkreisst.--Lenticel (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Chalnessa Eames was converted from a redirect to a referenced article and it linked to by three other articles; Pacific Northwest Ballet was also updated and referenced. -- Zyxw (talk) 01:10, 4 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_January_28&oldid=1146514607"