Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 7

February 7[edit]

The Outcasts of Poker Fiat → The Outcasts of Poker Flat[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by JzG. --- RockMFR 13:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense, and unlikely that anyone would misspell "flat" as "fiat". Also, this redirect was created by page move vandalism. Schzmo 20:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can just tag it with {{db-vandalism}}. {{db-redirtypo}} would apply, too. --- RockMFR 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Genekirikishiichiran → List of active Sumo wrestlers[edit]

The result of the debate was delete -- Renesis (talk) 19:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nonsense, probably a misspelling of the Japanese Genki Rikishi Ichiran (list of active wrestlers), but totally useless as it stands Auximines 09:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely that someone would type a name without spaces like that. --- RockMFR 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an implausible typo – Qxz 23:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we're all agreed. How do I go about actually getting this deleted? --Auximines 11:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wait. At some point an administrator will get around to closing it and taking the appropriate action – Qxz 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Daniel vosovic → Daniel Vosovic[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 15:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to deleted article left behind by a sloppy admin. Mikeblas 11:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Attention whore → Myspace[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted as a recreation of deleted content (G4) by User:Alphachimp. Eluchil404 15:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly obvious - i think this was created by a user who used (and may still) have that name - I it should be deleted regardless, but I'm going to see if the accound "Attention whore" (maybe 1 word?) is still in use. Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 14:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Try before you buy → Hire purchase[edit]

The result of the debate was retargeted to Shareware -- Renesis (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try before you buy is a broader concept than hire purchase, so users following links from the two pages that link to the redirect may be confused or receive a mistaken impression of the sense. Ideally a brief article would be created in its place. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 20:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was part of a larger merger proposal that never caught on (see Talk:Hire purchase#Merge proposal March 2006). Isn't there anyplace useful this could be redirected to? Ewlyahoocom 23:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to either Sales promotion or Shareware, no great targets exist though. —Dgies^t c 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

GuildWiki → Guild Wars[edit]

The result of the debate was keep (no consensus to delete) -- Renesis (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo. This used to be a full article, but it was decided at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GuildWiki to reduce this to a single link in Guild Wars and redirect. However, this wiki (while still existent) has been superceded by an official wiki. This site no longer even has a chance of meeting WP:WEB. — K. Chaudhuri 20:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a typo (I'm not sure why you are using that argument). The link should remain within the target article, and "GuildWiki" is a likely search term. Also, the redirect was created after a merge, so the whole GFDL thing comes into play (though, I guess the edit history is trivial, since about three words were merged - ironically, it had something to do with the GFDL). A redirect term does not have to meet WP:WEB in order to exist as a redirect, or exist as an external link within an article. --- RockMFR 22:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an unlikely typo for "Guild Wars", so it does not meet possibly the only applicable criterion in WP:R. There was no merge done during the AfD: the link to GuildWiki was already on the page before the AfD began. The outcome of the AfD was a reduction to redirect. Searching for Guild Wars should bring users to a no-article message, not misleadingly land them on the Guild Wars page. — K. Chaudhuri 00:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-I'm seeing an AfD consensus to merge and make this a redirect, and no convincing reason that anything relevant has changed since. (I don't really see the logic in a claim that its being "superceded" is a reason that a redirect that once made sense no longer does.)--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The redirect never made sense. The AfD consensus was mostly irrelevant as no action was taken as a result of it (except to replace the page with a #redirect). We generally leave redirects for merged articles for GFDL reasons, but here there was nothing to merge. — K. Chaudhuri 00:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I definitely don't agree with the assertion that it never made sense. Its a fairly likely search term, and it makes sense for it to point at a page that could provide the reader with at least some of the information they were looking for.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - A user searching for "GuildWiki" will now find exactly the statement "a large (unofficial) Guild Wars wiki" at the target of their search hidden in the external links at the very end of the article. There is nothing else about this wiki site in the article itself. I find it exceedingly hard to imagine someone searching for "GuildWiki" without knowing already that it was a wiki about Guild Wars. That and the link is potentially misleading because there are multiple wikis about Guild Wars with similar names, one of which is actually run by the makers of the game. — K. Chaudhuri 02:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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