Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 24

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 24, 2008

December 24[edit]

Red_Sonja_(2009_film) → Red_sonja[edit]

The result of the discussion was RfD not necessary - the redirect is not the result of an XfD, so no need for another discussion to overturn that. Just edit the article and create your article. Happy‑melon 17:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for Red Sonja(2009 film) leads to the main Red Sonja page.Instead, a page should be created exclusively for the film. P.S Details about the film including the cast,director etc are widely available on the web, so it would'nt be stub. --Roaring Siren (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Roaring Siren (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Main: → Wikipedia talk:[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all. I moved Make_links_relevant_talk to the Wikipedia space and fixed links to Rules to consider/Make only links relevant to the context debate. Ruslik (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have here a selection of cross-namespace redirects to the Wikipedia talk: namespace. They are all very old, being former policy pages that got moved into project space. There are no incoming links to any of them other than links from database reports listing such XNRs. We have a general consensus that old XNRs to Wikipedia: space are to be preserved since they generally lead to policy pages which were originally in the mainspace, and may have been externally referenced as such. I do not believe, however, that this argument applies here. These are not links to policies, but to discussions about them, discussions which in very few cases even appear on the pages in question. The likelihood of these transient discussions being linked to (without using permalinks) by external sites that still display those old links, seems utterly negligible. Even supposing such links do still exist, they are still 'broken' for those researchers who are not capable of following an edit trail through the page history, since these ancient discussions do not appear directly on the target pages in question. Any researcher who is capable of such an investigation is more than capable of locating the old discussions without the help of either a poorly-maintained external site or an incomprehensible on-wiki redirect. Meanwhile the existence of these links presents a continued danger/loose end in the form of a 'hole' by which readers may 'fall out' of the mainspace; they are valid choices for Special:RandomRedirect, for instance. I feel strongly that we are hamstringing ourselves with the past by insisting on maintaining such ancient links even when they are unhelpful. I recognise the concerns over linkrot, but a sanity check must be applied at some point: when does maintaining a link for up to six years stop being good web practice and become its own problem? Happy‑melon 15:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the discussions are internally linked. Moreover, they contain useful edit history that is beneficial for people who want to learn about the early days of Wikipedia (such as early discussion contributions by Larry Sanger, for example). I've already dealt with many of these, moving them to the project namespace and adjusting the relevant internal links. I've speedily dealt with Rules to consider/Usefulness for readers debate in the same way. I had in fact already dealt with Rules to consider/Make only links relevant to the context debate. There were still some inbound links that needed fixing, which is why I didn't delete the redirect. Deal with those first, now, and you can then delete that redirect as simple housekeeping.

As for the others, only Make links relevant talk contains useful history that should be preserved (another Sanger edit, coincidentally). The rest were redirects in all revisions. If I have a spare moment, I'll move it somewhere appropriate. Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally any internal links will need to be updated. IMO the only potentially useful revision in there that could be useful is the Sanger edit; surely that can just be history-merged into somewhere relevant to reunite it with the rest of its discussion? No need to keep the whole redirect just because of one edit. Happy‑melon 20:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nimp → Shock site[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_5#Nimp.org_.E2.86.92_Shock_site --Macbookair3140 (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing about nimp in Shock site. Per nom.--Ashbey_{Happy Holidays} Ӝ 15:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and the fact that it's not discussed in the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:35, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion on Nimp.org cited above. If it's not mentioned in the target article, it must go. B.Wind (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

James N. Gardner → Anthropic principle[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Advocates for running the prior James N. Gardner article through WP:AFD are not prevented from doing so.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that no third part sources, therefore "Wikipedia should not have an article on it". Surely if Wikipedia should have no article on a subject, the article should be deleted rather than redirected to a page that is somewhat connected to the subject but does imnot mention that connection? Six (talk) 11:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is somewhat unconventional. The redirect as it stands is in appropriate, so should be removed. However the article did exist prior to being turned into a redirect; I would prefer if the article was reverted to its article state and then put through AfD. Mike Peel (talk) 12:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been a redirect for more than nine months. How long ago can a redirect have been an article before RfD is the appropriate forum rather than AfD? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:56, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nine months is nothing. My view is that if it were a very short stub (a few unreferenced lines) turned into a redirect, then it's fine to go through RfD as a redirect. If it's something more substantial than that - like this article was - then turning it into a redirect shouldn't really circumvent it going through AfD. Length of time shouldn't really be a factor. Mike Peel (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropic principle appears to be the most appropriate general article covering the area of Gardner's 'biocosm' hypothesis (the only thing for which he has even a semblance of notability), and in fact briefly mentions one of Gardner's articles. However, if deletion is desired, I am not averse (i.e. weak delete). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return to article before redirect. There seem to be some external references e.g. in [1] --Rumping (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is a WP:GOOGLEHITS argument. When the irrelevant, unreliable and bare mention ("trivial" in WP:NOTE's nomenclature) hits are eliminated, there does not appear to be anything left. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 03:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really - it points to Google Scholar as a source of external references to Gardner's Biocosm so meeting the serious third party references requirement. Not that I really care. --Rumping (talk) 00:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to split hairs, it is the related WP:GOOGLE#General that is being violated: "A raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to ... whether they actually do demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case." Any time a commenter links to a search-result (be it Google, GoogleBooks or GoogleScholar), rather than specific pages that they found through it, and that they found to contain reliable independent significant coverage, they are violating this principle (which is also the principle behind WP:GOOGLEHITS). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 02:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - name appears only in a citation entry in the references section of the target. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Aerobically → Aerobic[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect to a disambiguation page, no useful page history, probably confusing to people searching for Aerobic. Twirligig (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep harmless and possibly helpful --Rumping (talk) 21:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep <gasp> An adverb? <double gasp> Oh no! flaming lawye r^c 04:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Happy fluff → Navel lint[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An unnecessary redirect. --smurdah (talk) 02:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is ridiculous. Quantumobserver (talk) 06:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - absurd! --Orange Mike | Talk 03:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:Fluteflute → User talk:Fluteflute (usurped)[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete, and move User talk:Flutefluteflute there. Tagged. NAC,--Ashbey_{Happy Holidays} Ӝ 15:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After my username was changed I wish to move my current talk page to its 'proper' location (from my old username at User talk:Flutefluteflute). -- Fluteflute ^Talk ^{Contributions} 11:45, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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