Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 27, 2012

Freaklikeme[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 retargeted. (non-admin closure) --BDD (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The target article was merged pursuant to an AFD, so this is now a double redirect. Rather than fixing it, I thought it would be best to just delete it. I think R3 may apply. It's not a typo, but it certainly seems like an implausible search term. I'm erring on the side of caution given my lack of experience with RFD. Alternatively, if we're going to keep the redirect, it should probably point to "Freak Like Me" instead. --BDD (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The page was created in 2007 and so is well outside the scope of the "recently created" requirement of R3. No opinion on the merits of the redirect yet. Thryduulf (talk) 00:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Freak Like Me D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:27, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Freak Like Me, as there is no way that someone could type "Freaklikeme" and be wanting some other page. Tideflat (talk) 20:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still doubt the utility of this redirect, but retargeting will do no harm. Closing. --BDD (talk) 20:18, 8 July 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.

QuickDB[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 QuickDB ORM. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the redir appears to be the name of a product Attachment made some time in the past. Does not appear on the Attachmate page, very little information on the web, no page history to speak of. Will not be missed, and a redline is better than a confusing redir. Maury Markowitz (talk) 19:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep I think it would be missed. It was visited 18 last month. Plus, if there is so little information on the web then we probably don't want a redlink, because it will not be notable enough for an article all by it's self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tideflat (talk • contribs) 03:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about making a disambig between Attachmate and Criteria for Speedy Deletion, where, for some baffling reason, all the templates start with {{db D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "db" in speedy deletion templates means "delete because". Thryduulf (talk) 21:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to QuickDB ORM. We're unlikely to ever have any information on the Attachmate product, but we've got plenty on another topic with the same name. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:16, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per A&H as above, failing that, delete. Any {{R from subtopic}} (even those not marked as such) pointing to a page that makes no mention of subject of the redirect is harmful and confusing. We do not want readers to read an article in a puzzled manner trying to deduce why they arrived there, and in such cases we are better served by having a redlink. The QuickDB ORM article's subject seems to actually only be called QuickDB, so I wonder whether the author created it at its present location simply because QuickDB already existed as a redirect at that time. BigNate37(T) 08:07, 11 July 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.

Super Junior's Untitled fifth studio 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 no consensus to delete. I separately evaluated the pagehistories to see if the attribution risk justified a history-restore of the versions deleted per the old AfD. Based on the dates of edits in the deleted content and on the creation date of the target page, I do not see convincing evidence that content was merged away from this title. Similar words were used in the early versions of the target page but that was likely because the same editors were remembering and retyping their own words, not the words of others. Since those editors already have full attribution credit via the edit history of the target page, I am declining the history-restore for now. Rossami (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: an article was created, titled Super Junior's Untitled fifth studio album citing Twitter and some fansites with no confirmed information, namely the title. Subsequently it did not survive an AFD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super Junior's Untitled fifth studio album with a result for 'delete'. However it was not but redirected instead, presumably so that what little content there was can be re-use in the article when official info became available, hence Mr. Simple. It should now be deleted per AFD also it is an implausibly worded title to search for, since there is no such 'untitled fifth studio album' anymore. Michaela den (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Keep and undelete old revisions behind redirect. Firstly, this gets lots of hits, so it's linked from somewhere external and secondly information was merged from this article into the present one, so this should be kept to maintain the attribution history (hence the reason I'm recommending the undeletion of old revisions). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If edit history was the only concern, that could be preserved without preserving the redirect in its current form. BigNate37(T) 08:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, although when the original location is not harmful why would we - moving to talk subpages, etc is less optimal than retaining in the original location. Anyway, the edit history is not the only reason I'm recommending keeping as is. 82.132.211.243 (talk) 09:34, 11 July 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.

Timothy Craig[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 under WP:CSD#G3, G7 by Kusma (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) at 13:47, 9 July 2012. RfD closure by BigNate37(T) 08:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have this name. I found an artist, a doctor, but none have any obvious connection to Dracula. Kilopi (talk) 11:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate, there are several people with this name mentioned in Wikipedia articles, some are possibly notable in their own right. As for the Dracula connection, I'm struggling to find anything (the closest I've come is that a Tim Craig, the father of a local celebrity in Shropshire, was known as "The Count", because of his resemblance to Dracula. Which is tenuous in the extreme). Neither the page history nor the creators contributions offer any clues, other than that the referenced Timothy Craig is possibly more likely to be an American than any other nationality (and that doesn't help much) and so unlikely to be the English person I found above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was created by the same person who made the two redirects discussed immediately below. As already noted, the contribution history makes me very skeptical. To Thryduulf's proposal, I did not find anyone mentioned in Wikipedia with this name that clearly appeared to pass our inclusion criteria. And even if they do, the Manual of Style does not generally allow redlinks on disambiguation pages. Unless there are specific articles that can be named for disambiguation, I think for now we should simply delete. Rossami (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alright, I admit it. I did this because I was really bored one day and decided to see how long it would last. And really, a couple months is pretty impressive, you gotta admit. I apologise, it won't happen again. But I do have to say that the fact you guys are discussing it is hilarious to me xD. I apologise, though. --Aguyuno (talk) 11:31, 2 July 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.

Ass Clown[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 delted per G10 and R3 by user:Ponyo. Thryduulf (talk) 02:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the best explanation I got. Last month the umpire made a call and a player disagreed. The next day about 3 fans of the aggrieved player called him an assclown on Twitter.

I'm sure the fans have moved on and found someone else to blame for their team's continuing woes, so let's get rid of this BLP violation of a redirect. Kilopi (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, almost all the hits for this phrase are definitions in unreliable sources like Urban Dictionary. Thryduulf (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Solid G10 case. --BDD (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I've tagged it as such. (I don't want to delete it myself given my above comment). Thryduulf (talk) 00:09, 28 June 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.

Stephen Fountain[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 speedy delete per WP:CDS#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few people by this name. I found a massage therapist, a psych professor, and a pastor, but nobody with any visible connection to Pres Lincoln. Kilopi (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It's not clear whether anyone with this name is notable enough for their own article, and none seems particularly more prominent than the others, so there is no suitable target for the redirect that I can find (and I can find even less of a connection between any Stephen Fountain and Abraham Lincoln than I managed with Timothy Craig and Dracula above). Thryduulf (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can find no connection at all between these two concepts. The contribution history of the creating user (including deleted contributions) is not encouraging. I don't have enough evidence to definitively call it vandalism but it streches past my ability to assume good faith. Delete. Rossami (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unable to find any link whatsoever between anyone with this name and Lincoln. Hut 8.5 10:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Alright, I admit it. I did this because I was really bored one day and decided to see how long it would last. And really, a couple months is pretty impressive, you gotta admit. I apologise, it won't happen again. But I do have to say that the fact you guys are discussing it is hilarious to me xD. I apologise, though. Nonetheless, how serious you guys take this site is very impressive to me (and I mean that). Nowhere else would this type of thing a) Have been caught immediately and b) Be actually discussed before just deleted. Had I noticed you caught it immediately, I would've admitted it was me and immediately apologised - not just let it go. I thought I had escaped notice, but apparently not! Well done :). --Aguyuno (talk) 11:31, 2 July 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.

0.4[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 List of numbers#Fractional numbers. Ruslik_Zero 10:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Err...Redirecting this is as absurd as redirecting 42 to "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything". MichaelSchumacherMercedes (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, 42 (number) does prominently discuss the connection to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. There's some other stuff on that page but I strongly suspect that if there were nothing else, that would redirect to the Hitchhiker meme. Keep for now per Thryduulf. I also am unable to find any reasonable basis for expansion of the discussion of the number itself. Rossami (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create List of numbers between 0 and 1 and retarget to it. We can then do the same for other sub-1 decimals and fractions. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done i redirected 0.4 only. Jawadreventon (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I redirected the page to List of numbers#Fractional numbers, where we already have a list for rational numbers less than 1. It had been nominated for speedy deletion via A3, which was perhaps misguided. I suspect if the list article was created pursuant to the WP:SAL, it wouldn't have been tagged. BigNate37(T) 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any evidence that other such number articles exist? I spot-checked a few random numbers in that range via the search engine and came up empty. Don't have a clue how to run an exhaustive search, though. Rossami (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice against replacing with an article about the number in the future. Courses of action that are contingent on someone volunteering to create content aren't viable in my opinion, such things could have been done already over top of the redirect, and can still be done if the redirect is removed. Note that a search for "0.4 shot" brings up the 0.4 redirect as the first result, and Derek Fisher (section The 0.4 shot) as the second result. I have created redirects at The 0.4 shot and 0.4 shot, pointing them at Derek Fisher#The 0.4 shot and tagging said section with an anchor & comment to insulate against link breakage should the section's name be changed in the future. I feel that 0.4 is too broad a search for a redirect, and it's not intuitive that someone seeking the 0.4 shot would simply search "0.4". BigNate37(T) 07:55, 11 July 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_June_27&oldid=1091632817"