Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 23, 2008

Micros~1 → Microsoft[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slated for deletion last December, but never deleted. Nothing links to it. Unlikely search term. Speedy delete? —phh (t/c) 21:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very odd. Seems to be 'Microsoft' rendered in the DOS 8.3 naming pattern. Very unlikely search term, so delete. RichardΩ612 Ɣ |Contribs 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the precedent of the earlier debate linked above (which differs only in case from the present one). — Gavia immer (talk) 22:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - technically doesn't qualify for speedy deletion (deleted redirect had its title in all caps) unless an admin wants to take a liberal view of CSD G4. Lack of linking is not a reason for deleting (see top of WP:RfD), but I don't see Micros~1 as a likely search item (but then again, others might have a contrary view). B.Wind (talk) 02:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely to be search by anyone not knowing the target of the redirect. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User_talk:Cheeser1 → Scapegoat[edit]

The result of the debate was withdrawn by the nominator below (and in any case, it would be kept per WP:SNOW). — Gavia immer (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect that seems a little pointy. I'm not sure that a deletion is the best bet here because of the history of a user talk page. Need some input. Thanks! --SimpleParadox 16:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. I think that this RfD is very likely to do more harm than good. By the way, it's only a soft redirect, i.e. basically just a link. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC). Added vote 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no point in deleting a soft redirect on a user talk page. Should Cheeser1 no longer want it, he/she/it will simply overwrite it or blank it for a speedy delete. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the extend to which the idiocy continues to rain down on me knows now bounds, apparently, which does nothing but confirm this soft-redirect as quite appropriate. Chase me off Wikipedia for daring to try to stop a disruptive "expert" and now we'll delete my talk page because apparently a retired user's userspace dare not sit as a warning to anyone who is naive enough to try to do a little good in the face of disruptive "experts." Thanks SP, for the AGF. It's not like I've already addressed this issue by changing it to a soft redir.. oh right, I did. --Cheeser1 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Thanks for the input, everyone, I'll withdraw the nomination for discussion. I understand you are frustrated, Cheeser1, but please refrain from throwing around AGF in discussions; I happen to agree with you about disruptive "experts." Also, sarcasm and indirect attacks do not generally add anything to a debate. I will remove the RfD template from the retired user's talk page and I am sure someone uninvolved will close this thread. Cheers, --SimpleParadox 20:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Aberrations of normal development and involution of breast → Breast[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Created after a non-encyclopedic article was moved and then redirected to the target. Extremely unlikely search term + no links. RichardΩ612 16:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Why use an eight word search item when the last word is the actual name of the article? This violates the Reasonability Rule, as an old friend would say. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most improbable search item. Kiss principle, anybody? B.Wind (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unlikely search term, might be better to redirect to tumour or breast cancer, but still unlikely. ~AH1(TCU) 20:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Also cocks → Cock[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely search term. Created with the rationale I imagine that it would be less of an attack to redirect straight to => Cock. It's not an attack, that's true... just pointless! RichardΩ612 15:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I made the redirect to discourage vandals from creating an attacking redirect or an unsuitable article. I have always felt that redirects are a better solution than protected titles of deleted pages. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article isn't protected [although a request could be made], and even if sprotected, determined vandals can still make sleeper accounts to vandalise; although it may cut down on idiocy. ><RichardΩ612 16:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Creating to prevent an unsuitable article smells of WP:BEANS (I apologise for the inadvertent pun). The phrase seems to be an internet meme that appears to be lacking in the WP:V and WP:RS department. Clearly the article in question is not a likely search item, but anybody searching in Google or Yahoo! will now uncover it in the search pages (and possibly in the mirrors as well). So not only should it be deleted, it should be salted until further notice to prevent the article the redirect's creator was trying to avoid. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IP above. I am not convinced that salting is necessary. Protection is always an option should Damian Yerrick's foreboding proves prescient. B.Wind (talk) 02:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, creation was a fairly silly idea. We can't hope prevent every single unsuitable name for an article. --Aquillion (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikiland → Wikipedia[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be nonsense, unlikely search term. No links. RichardΩ612 15:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - senseless redirect. Did someone forget about WP:BEANS before this was created? 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - my original reaction has been erased due to WP:BEANS consideration (don't look for it - I backspaced before posting). Let us hope this trend of silliness regarding redirects to the Wikipedia article ends soon. B.Wind (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jaina Solo's Panties → Jaina Solo[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently created as the result of talk page tomfoolery. Unlikely search term, and generally not helpful. -LtNOWIS (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Silly and amusing, but a ridiculous redirect. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 14:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - at least someone mentioned WP:BEANS in the linked discussion above, but it's still nonsense. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - how'd it manage to survive three years? Another entry in the parade of silly redirects for disposal. B.Wind (talk) 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per above. David Pro (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_23&oldid=1138575113"