Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 17
October 17[edit]
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 17, 2008
Pheroline → Pheromone[edit]
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 02:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Pheroline is a commercial product which may or may not contain pheromones. Pheroline is not mentioned anywhere in the article in any case. Centrepull (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SPAM. There is no reliable source establishing the existence of human pheromones, much less this product containing one. Rockpocket 20:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The product may not deserve an article, but someone might search Wikipedia for it, and "pheromone" seems to be the best place for it. Editing it to Pheromone#Humans might be better. PaulGS (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete According to its search function, Wikipedia currently has no information on Pheroline, and while people may search for the term, having no result as outcome of a search is in this case the appropriate outcome. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - not only is the term not in the target article, it's nowhere to be found in Wikipedia article space (aside from the redirect itself). In this case, deletion would cause the reader to search something that actually contains the term and - more importantly - have something more than a one-word mention of it. 147.70.242.40, temporarily at 147.70.242.41 (talk) 23:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
HP:ADR → Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing[edit]
The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 10:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Improperly formed shortcut (the similar WP:ADR appears as a shortcut listed at target), but the "HP:" makes this a cross-namespace redirect. No significant history would be lost if deleted. B.Wind (talk) 03:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.British nobility stubs → Template:UK-noble-stub[edit]
The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 02:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Improper crossnamespace redirect, does not link to encyclopedic content, nor a valid stub link. MBisanz talk 03:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete - left over from fixing a template that was improperly created in article namespace. Mauls (talk) 10:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Keep because it's a left-over from the repair. The redirect will ensure than anyone still looking for the template will find the correct version. It also aids anyone trying to sort through the history to see what the transcluded content pointed to. I don't see any reasonable possibility that a reader would follow this link expecting to find anything but a meta-page about other articles. It's not a title likely to be needed for actual article content. Tag it as "unprintworthy", though. Rossami (talk) 14:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The template was moved into the article space for about 2.5 hours, so no one will be expecting to find it there. Deleting this redirect will not break any history transclusions (it's a breaking move and requires different syntax) at all as the template was at the current title before the move. Potentially confusing as it will crop up in searches for articles, and stubs are a WP maintenance tool, not encyclopaedic content. mattbr 09:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. --MZMcBride (talk) 07:39, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Bounty board → Wikipedia:Bounty board[edit]
The result of the debate was Retarget to bounty. Tikiwont (talk) 10:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Improper crossnamespace redirect, does not link to encyclopedic content. MBisanz talk 03:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Retarget to bounty or bounty (reward). --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Retarget to bounty as Wikipedia bounty board is mentioned in the article. There could conceivably be other uses but I'm wary of that argument. JASpencer (talk) 08:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
- Retarget per UsaSatsui (talk · contribs). Tohd8BohaithuGh1 (talk) 22:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Imbox → Template:Imbox[edit]
The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD G7. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 03:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Improper crossnamespace redirect, does not link to encyclopedic content. MBisanz talk 03:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Correct, the page should be deleted. αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 10:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Delete; cross-namespace redirect, relatively recent, no useful history, and of no use to the readers as opposed to editors (and frankly of little use to editors...) — Gavia immer (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per G7...or alternately, retarget to E-mail as a typo for Inbox (which probably shouldn't point there, but that's another discussion). --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete: WP:G7 - I don't remember what I was thinking when I created the page, but I definitely should be deleted. αЯβιτЯαЯιŁΨθ (talk) 19:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Image for deletion → Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion[edit]
The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 10:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
Improper crossnamespace redirect, does not link to encyclopedic content. MBisanz talk 03:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Note.Delete - redirect is two years old, but no substantive change since then. Thus this CNR has no significant history that is needed to be preserved. B.Wind (talk) 02:35, 22 October 2008 (UTC)- Strong delete - mainspace is for mainspace content. Navel-gazing is a perfect term for it. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia about the world, not an encyclopedia about Wikipedia. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)