Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on February 6, 2008

Supeman Prime → Superman Prime[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept & tagged as misspelling. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect whose edit history indicates that it was created accidentally via misspelling during a page move. Doczilla (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this would do well as a redirect from a common misspelling. Simply south (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Supeman seems a likely enough misspelling, and redirects are cheap. Bart133 (t) (c) 19:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - No articles link to this but could be a common misspelling. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 21:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

General consequence operator → Consequence operator[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical term that does not exist outside the publications of User:Raherrmann, who created the redirect in COI. Herrmann's works are of poor quality, appeared in third class scientific journals and are generally ignored by the scientific community. See [1]. Hans Adler (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. COI non-notable mathamatical term, no evidence that it really exists. Bart133 (t) (c) 20:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Nonstandard consequence operator → Consequence operator[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematical term that does not exist outside the publications of User:Raherrmann, who created the redirect in COI. Herrmann's works are of poor quality, appeared in third class scientific journals and are generally ignored by the scientific community. See [2]. Hans Adler (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

National Tramway Museum tramcar list → Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 03:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be a useful redirect, I believe. Others disagree stating "redirect is not a list, don't see how it's useful, wasting space, pointless, need I say more?". Rjd0060 (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, as i tagged it, before some sysop protected it. It isn't useful. The redirect isnt a list, its an encyclopeadic entry. If you MUST have a redirect, becuase you're all *** *******, then have National Tramway Museum tramcars, AS IT'S NOT A ******* LIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! - BG7 16:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list that I drew up, and also have a copy of on my site that is copyrighted. I don't care about GFDL etc, but I will be withdrawing it if this continues. Also, why should the page be that? It's not a bleeding list!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a page with information on each tramcar, that I am expanding in my sandbox (and if ANYONE commits it they WILL BE REVERTED. The list will be removed in due course. Still Speedy Delete BG7 16:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasnt trying to say otherwise. It's something called free speech - i don't force opinions. BG7 16:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having peeped into your sandbox (which looks very good) it looks to me as if there could be an article Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum and also, separately, the present useful list - List of Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum. Carminis (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the encouragement! That probably could be what happens, but I don't see any point in having both - especially as the article will be a duplicate of the list but with LOTS more info, and more easily editable. I still think that where the redirect currently points it is pointless. (sorry!). Thanks BG7 17:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: plausible and relevant search term. While the target article isn't strictly a list, it does contain one, complete with illustrations. If an article such as the "List of Tramcars of the National Tramway Museum" suggested appears in future, then the target of the redirect can be altered appropriately. (What BG7 is objecting to?) --RFBailey (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Samuel Rouen → Obese[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. VegaDark (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive article in original edit diff then article redirected to 'Obese'. •Florrie•leave a note• 13:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as G10 (attack page). I have tagged it as such. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. For future reference, can this sort of re-direct be tagged for speedy straight away or does it have to come to RfD first? I tagged 2 other re-directs for speedy by the same contributor, but in those instances there was no 'hidden' article involved. •Florrie•leave a note• 22:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For obvious vandalism redirects, they can just be tagged for speedy, no need to bring to RfD first. VegaDark (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Saft → Citroën Berlingo Electrique[edit]

The result of the debate was Disambig. There are several possible meanings for Saft so this should be a disambig page. I have included a red link for the French battery company. Per Google, there are actually a couple of companies with the name Saft (or SAFT) so if there should be an additional one, please add it. -- JLaTondre (talk) 18:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect page should be an article on the SAFT Battery company, not redirecting to a car using the battery itself. I am aware that I could create it without a request or approval, but I won't as I do not have the neccesary skills or time to write and cite sources for an article or even a stub. It may be better if it were deleted for now and someone else can create a new one when/if they decide to. --Tedd-the-Tiger (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. If you cannot write the article, the best for the reader looking for information about electric vehicles and batteries is have a reference about the company. And these references, upto now in Wikipedia, are the cars that uses the batteries. If you cannot create, mantain !.--Mac (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the preference to keep the page, but I'm not sure of its usefulness in its current state. For example, I find a reference to Saft batteries in cars or planes in an article and want to know more about the company itself. I click the link and get directed to just another reference, and a single, specific one at that. What about other areas the company is involved in (If there are any)? It may be just me but I don't think that's helpful. I would like this page to end up as deleted because then any links to it would appear red, encouraging people to create a proper article. Who knows, maybe I'm making something out of nothing. This is my first time doing anything more than spelling corrections. ;) --Tedd-the-Tiger (talk) 09:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Telecom Plus → Charles Wigoder#Telecom Plus/Utility Warehouse[edit]

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by nominator, non-admin close

This redirect has only ever existed as a redirect to the Charles Wigoder article. Argyriou (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clearlfy what you think the problem is because only existing as a redirect is not a deletion critieria and Telecom Plus is named in the secion the redirect redirects to. --76.66.188.168 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The company appears to be not very notable, as nobody has bothered to create an article about it separate from its founder, Charles Wigoder. The existence of the redirect may serve to inhibit creation of an actual article, should that be warranted. While the redirect is old, it's also not much depended upon, and it's only ever existed as a redirect - there's no history of a separate article having been merged, or anything like that. Argyriou (talk) 06:53, 6 February 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_February_6&oldid=1136448697"