Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on November 27, 2007

KKKramer → Michael Richards[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted. GlassCobra 18:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory redirect, possible BLP violation. No where in the article is this phrase used. I am also bundling Kkkramer with this nomination meshach (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete both as G10 (attack page). I have tagged them as such. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

House of Cards (Song) → House of Cards (Madina Lake song)[edit]

The result of the debate was redirect to House of cards (disambiguation). - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was a real article, improperly named (note the case of "Song"), that I moved to House of Cards (Madina Lake song). The redirect is the result of the move. I fixed all the old links, the final bit of cleanup is to delete this redirect, as it conflicts with the pre-existing, unrelated Radiohead page House of Cards (song) —johndburger 03:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like a disambiguation page may be more useful than either deleting or repointing. Regardless, keep the existing redirect in history because it documents the pagemove. Then retarget the redirect to the closer-named song (different only in the capitalization of "song"). The Radiohead song's page is in the right place so this redirect is not in the way of a future pagemove. There is no compelling reason to delete the pagehistory. Rossami (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to House of cards (disambiguation), which lists both songs. WjBscribe 18:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cartoon Network Magazine → Cartoon Network[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. Subjects are closely related. Although the target does not discuss the redirect, any user may include information of the magazine in the Cartoon Network article. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant to the article its redirected to, the cartoon network magazine should not be a redirect to the channel, both different makers Yinyanglightningthrash (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A review of the google hits that come up for a search on the magazine indicates that there is a strong connection between the magazine and the network. The magazine is designed to use derivative characters, plotlines, etc. The redirect seems reasonable to me. The fact that the magazine is published by DC Comics while the network is owned by Time Warner does not mean that the redirect is automatically inappropriate. Rossami (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Someone looking for the magazine isn't looking for the network and the network article contains no mention of the magazine. Deleting makes it more likely someone will act on the redlinks and create an actual article. WjBscribe 18:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered that but I don't think that the magazine would meet the recommended notability guidelines for a stand-alone article. Do you think that there's enough evidence that the page would be kept if it were created independently? Or would we be effectively baiting a new user into creating an article just to see it speedy-deleted? Rossami (talk) 20:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mmm, that's a fair point - the sources available don't look great. I still wonder if we would be better to be upfront that we don't have an article rather than redirect people to a related article that doesn't discuss the subject... WjBscribe 01:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Striker Pack → METEOR (Gundam)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 18:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Striker Pack article was deleted and someone recreated one some time afterwards with totally irrelevant content, then moved the page to Striker Pack METEOR to prevent deletion. The new name is still incorrect(has nothing to do with Striker pack at all) and thus I moved it to METEOR (Gundam) and that page is currently under a merge proposal. Since the redirects are incorrect, they should be removed. MythSearchertalk 14:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

"George" P.S.W. Bulman → George Bulman (pilot)[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect refers to subject as P.S.W Bulman when his name was P.W.S. Bulman —Preceding unsigned comment added by MilborneOne (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep because it documents a (relatively recent) pagemove. Pagemoves to fix titling mistakes (like the transposed initials) are common. The WikiMedia software automatically creates the redirects as part of the pagemove process. Among other things, the redirect points the original contributors to the correct title so they can continue contributing. Redirects from typos are not an endorsement of the original mistake or nonsense - they are how we correct the mistake. Rossami (talk) 23:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. Terraxos (talk) 20:25, 9 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_November_27&oldid=1085562069"