Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 5

May 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 5, 2008

Vy_reddy → Y. Venugopal Reddy[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, G7 non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 03:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had mistakenly created this redirect. The order of the first two letters are Vy where they should have been Yv Rohit Reddy™ (talk) 14:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close since redirect is alerady deleted. --76.71.211.117 (talk) 01:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rao Kandhal → Rawat Kandhal[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept. Rao seems to be a title. If target is deleted, then this would qualify as CSD R1. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to article – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The article says that he was brother of Rao Jodha and uncle of Rao Bika. I suspect that "Rao Handhal" is just an alternative name of this person. No idea on what the "Rao" thing means --Enric Naval (talk) 06:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Target article has been prodded for notability and WP:COI. We'll see what happens there.B.Wind (talk) 15:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation) → Revisionism[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Implausible (stupid redirect) – ThatWikiGuy (talk|I can see you) 12:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But it's the only way to get the the Disambiguated, or discombabulated! --Ludvikus (talk) 12:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Revisionism is a DAB. I wish to be able use this DAB with respect to Historical revisionism (negationism) --Ludvikus (talk) 23:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add {{seealso|Revisionism}} to Historical revisionism (negationism). – ThatWikiGuy (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. its creation show a profound misunderstanding of what disambiguation pages are for. The main article is Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (negationism) is a minor but significant different meaning. We do not need a page called Historical revisionism (negationism) (disambiguation) as there is a link back to the main article in at the start of the Historical revisionism (negationism). --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Philip Baird Shearer. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probably a leftover from an old, now deprecated disambiguation page. Completely improbable search term. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See history of the redirect, it is not a leftover it was created on May 5 2008 by Ludvikus --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete improperly named redirect page (per WP:D) that is unnecessary as well. There are only two articles with the name Historical revisionism (the second, disambiguated, one should be merged into the first one as it comes across as a POV fork, but that's beyond the scope of this RfD; however, there's and AfD covering this while this is open); if both are maintained, a hatnote will be all that's needed for disambiguation. B.Wind (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Gamecruft → Cruft[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Gamecruft" is a non-notable neologism and its meaning is not explained in the cruft article (and should not be, because it is not a notable concept). As a result, the redirect is not useful. It is also misleading as the Wikipedia definition of (WP:GAMECRUFT) is about the guideline "Wikipedia is not a game guide" and cruft is about programming. Fancruft is another non-useful redirect to cruft and according to WP:FANCRUFT, "use of the word itself is inappropriate in actual articles (per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms and Wikipedia:Avoid self-references)" so as a result redirects to something that does not, and should not, explain or mention it. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. Colonel Warden (talk) 03:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep it's merely a DAB issue. Merely click on Revisionism. --Ludvikus (talk) 12:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Error: Posted in wrong place. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete gamecruft and Keep fancruft, because it's a likely search term (unlike gamecruft, fancruft is in wide use at the internets outside of wikipedia, listed on urban dictionary[1], used as a tag on Amazon[2], etc) . Yes, "Fancruft" redirects to a page about cruft on programming that can confuse the searcher, but that's better than the list of results[3] VG Cats as the first result because someone wrote "fancruft" on a tag, Cruft as second, and then a passing mention on Fictitious_entry#Related_types_of_text. The currect state as a redirect to Cruft is the best option unless someone can think of something better. Gamecruft, however, is only an inside term at wikipedia and should be deleted. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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