Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 4, 2007

Hoop Earrings, Stud earing, and Stud earring → Earring[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. Stud & hoop are two types of earrings so they are likely search phrases. We routinely keep likely misspellings (under which earing qualifies) and alternative capitalizations (under which Earrings qualifies). As for the vandal argument, that is not applicable as the articles were deleted and the redirects were created by editors in good standing. -- JLaTondre 00:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First two created by one of the many sockpuppets of User:Belginusanl as part of his recurrent vandalism. Articles were deleted per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stud_earing but left as redirects. Third redirect was created when the second was moved, pre-deletion, to correct the spelling. None are linked to from any article (one was from a disambig, but I went ahead and changed it to bypass the redirect) and none have any history. Unlikely to ever be used due to capitalization and spelling problems, and unlikely to even be tried before 'earring' itself by anyone other than this disturbing, "young girls with earrings"-obsessed vandal. Basically, there's no need for these leftover relics of vandalism. In the unlikely event that they are later found useful, they can easily be recreated without the connection this vandal who was so bad even Jimbo himself got involved. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look, if you're so upset that a vandal created the redirects, go ahead and delete them, then recreate them yourself. The last two are plausible entries in the search box because of a common misspelling, and because someone might expect to see separate articles for different types of earring. The first one is implausible, but that's just my opinion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they were legitimately helpful, I would agree that the origin didn't matter. But there is no evidence that they are indeed useful in any way (searching for both "stud" titles brings up "earring" as the first article, so no one would fail to find it) and they wouldn't even exist if it weren't for vandalism. Vandalism-created redirects shouldn't be kept by default just because some legit user might find them useful, only if they do provide an actual benefit. The only reason I didn't propose G6 speedy deletion was out of respect for the AFD participants who (rightfully) assumed good faith. Now that the truth has come to light, however, it's time to delete them as they would have been if it had been known at the time of the AFD that it was vandalism and not good-faith mistakes by a new user. The core question is: is there any actual (not hypothetical) benefit to keeping them? And there isn't. --Icarus (Hi!) 00:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plausible typo/misspelling. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 06:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Earing" is a plausible typo/misspelling, and there is already a redirect from that spelling to the actual article. There is no need for these redirects with "stud" and "hoop" in front of them, especially as one has a capitalization problem that further reduces the chance of it ever being used. If they were created in good faith by a real user and not a vandal, I'd accept that they were useful or they wouldn't have been created, but right now there's no evidence of that. --Icarus (Hi!) 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'stud earring', delete the other two. It's the only one of these that seems like a fairly plausible search term to me; the misspelled version, less so, and 'Hoop Earrings' definitely not. Terraxos (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

2009 books → Used book[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy delete as cleanup from very old page-move vandalism — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"2009 books" has nothing to do with used books. Additionally, potentially related pages like 2007 books or 2008 books don't exist. Anirvan 03:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as G3 (pure vandalism) - see here and here. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-delete. This was overlooked cleanup from some pagemove vandalism. Rossami (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

UserMichfan2123/Sandbox → User:Michfan2123/Sandbox[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --- RockMFR 16:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Made this by mistake —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michfan2123 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Amicus meus → Amicus Meus[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. Target has been restored so nomination rationale no longer applicable. If target is successfully nominated for deletion, redirect can be deleted as db-redirnone. -- JLaTondre 00:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page redirects to a non-existent page. David Pro (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep until we've sorted out what happened at the target page. It was speedy-deleted two days ago but does not appear to have met any of the speedy-deletion tags. The deleted history explicitly shows that it was initally tagged for speedy-deletion and that a subsequent editor reviewed and rejected the claim. I am storing it for now with a note that the target article may need discussion at AFD. Rossami (talk) 23:43, 4 December 2007 (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/2007_December_4&oldid=616542794"