Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 17, 2008

Wikipedia:PATRIOTACT → Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/BLP Special Enforcement[edit]

The result of the debate was snowball delete. Daniel (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an attempt to introduce POV towards an arbcom ruling through a redirect. It is about the same as redirecting WP:BROKENSYSTEM to WP:RfA. 1 != 2 19:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Definitely making a point here. Let's delete it & move on with the discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No need to add to the controversy here, too pointy, and not constructive. Cenarium (talk) 20:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the usefulness and appropriateness of the "special enforcement" page and remedy are debatable, this redirect doesn't add anything productive to the discussion. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Point-less disruption. --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Disruptive. MBisanz talk 21:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While the merits of the target page deserve careful thought and discussion, this redirect is a WP:POINT violation. Delete. (I don't think any of the CSD criteria apply, though.) Rossami (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. clearly in bad taste and too POV. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete ... I was about to do that when I saw it was being discussed. ++Lar: t/c 21:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, (eyeroll emoticon needed). Tim Vickers (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - for lots of reasons, including being unnecessarily emotive. PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although it is humorous. Monobi (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cancún, Baja California → Cancún[edit]

The result of the debate was delete, CSD R3. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The target of this redirect isn't in Baja California. Actually, according to the 2005 INEGI census, there is no locality called Cancún in Baja California. Spacepotato (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

German/Irish-Americans → German American[edit]

The result of the debate was keep the Scottish one, delete the rest. Wizardman 16:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another of a string of (nationality)-(nationality)-American redirects which demonstrate overcategorization gone wild. In addition, this redirect is improperly named as it has the appearance of being a subpage. Similarly I offer the following for consideration as other examples of overcategorization:

Scottish-Irish-Americans → Scots-Irish Americans
German-Irish-American → American people
Afro-Latino-Cuban → Demographics of Cuba
Italo-Irish American → Demography of the United States
German-Irish American → Demography of the United States
Canadian Afro-Caribbean community → Demography of Canada

B.Wind (talk) 09:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Scottish-Irish-Americans: as there is an article on that ethnic group, it is just about plausible as a search term. Delete the rest as excessive overcategorisation and unlikely search terms. Terraxos (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

American Civilization War → American Civil War[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does this phrase appear nowhere in the target article, no reliable source uses this term, which confuses "civilization" with "civil", two similar words with very different meaning. This has the potential of being a very confusing redirect, and should be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 08:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Celebrity Golf → Golf[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect has the name of a 1960-1961 weekly television program that was broadcast in the United States by NBC and hosted by professional golfer Sam Snead. This title makes no appearance in the title article; a standalone article on the TV series is most desirable, but I do not have enough information to create one as I write this nomination. Since the redirection is a bit misleading (sport vs. television program), it would be better to delete and ask if Wikiproject Television could help in writing a Celebrity Golf article. B.Wind (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now as implausible redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gail Bellamy → Earl Bellamy[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original target of redirect was a section that has since disappeared ("Personal life"); names of non-notable relatives have been removed from the target article before presenting this nomination for RfD discussion. With the same justification, the following three redirects are also offered for consideration:

Karen Bellamy → Earl Bellamy
Michael Bellamy → Earl Bellamy
Earl J. Bellamy → Earl Bellamy

B.Wind (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: if the person isn't mentioned in the target article, there's probably no need for a redirect. Terraxos (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hollywood.com → Hollywood (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect title doesn't appear at all in disambiguation page. B.Wind (talk) 07:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there's no Hollywood.com article, there's no point in redirecting to a dab page that doesn't mention one. Delete 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it, disambiguation pages should point to articles, not the other way around. If there is no article then it should not be. 1 != 2 15:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

7.6 (Year 7) → Year Seven[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to call this a nonsense redirect, but I fail to see the connection between redirect title and target article. If someone can find that connection, I would certainly like to know. B.Wind (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteI think that the redirect is implausible and confusing. I tried to search the web but I can't find any connection as well.--Lenticel (talk) 11:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the....? I don't know if it qualifies for CSD R3, but it certainly is beyond my understanding. Delete. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per R3, seems to meet the criteria to me. 1 != 2 20:54, 17 June 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_June_17&oldid=1138575397"