Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 April 28

April 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 28, 2009

A Missed Call → The Black Circle[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep and add reference to target.--Aervanath (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No indication in the target article why this redirect makes any sense. Judging by the article history, this might have been a working title. Redirect was generated through page move. Is this redirect still required? MLauba (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Retarget to One Missed Call, seems to be the best target at the moment.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "A Missed Call" isn't mentioned anywhere in the body of the article. No prejudice against it being recreated in the future if there is a tie between the two, however. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Missed call. TerriersFan (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rubuild as dab containing missed call, One Missed Call, and The Black Circle 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the relevance to The Black Circle? EVula // talk // ☯ // 10:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For some unknown reason, several blog websites are incorrectly reporting that the name of this book is A Missed Call. This redirect should be kept so if someone reads that the name of this book is A Missed Call, and wants to find the article about it on Wikipedia, he/she will be able to find it. Then, in a couple of months, when the book's release date approaches, and everyone will know what the book's title really is, the redirect can be deleted. Ag97 (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... but amend target article to explain it! PamD (talk) 07:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disambiguation MacDonald Sisters → MacDonald sisters, daughters of George Browne MacDonald[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unlikely search term. PrepareToQualify (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as unlikely term. PaulJones (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the spot-on nom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Requests for editors to stop being so stupid → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term -- IRP ☎ 03:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No valid reason for deletion presented. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can provide three other reasons why it should be deleted. Nothing links to it except for RfD-related pages (which was caused by the RfD nomination), it is rarely used, and when it is (if it ever is), it disrupts Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Overall, I think it is a useless redirect. -- IRP ☎ 04:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was asked to expand my comments here a bit. It's a playful and harmless redirect in the project namespace. Like my vote for WP:HELLHOLE today, I don't really have an issue with these types of things (unless it somehow becomes disruptive, which I don't see any evidence of). --MZMcBride (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall making this, though it is arguably mildly amusing. Other redirects of similar description, but not insulting, should be kept. —Centrx→talk • 03:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If somebody used this to alert a person to an RfC, they would arrive angrier than if the proper link was used. This is counterproductive. Resurr Section (talk) 20:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bad idea for a redirect; as Resurr Section says, it's liable to stir up more conflict than it resolves. No incoming links either. Robofish (talk) 07:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As someone that doesn't have a ridiculously thin skin, I don't see how this is disruptive at all (WP:POINT is almost mis-quoted as much as WP:IAR). It certainly made me chuckle when I saw it... EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, being both perjorative and potentially provocative. Arriving at the target page is not going to bring a smile to everyone's lips. --Zigger «º» 10:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Taggin an editor as 'stupid' is not playful, nor amusing, nor useful (specially if the edito *is* stupid...) - Nabla (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused and potentially provocative.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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