Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 27, 2009

Great president[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: misleading. "great president" is a pretty generic phrase, and not really very much connected to the US or the 2004 elections. It apparently was an anti-Googlebomb to miserable failure at some time, but I would rather expect the phrase to redirect to someone like the Dear Leader. —Кузьма討論 19:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Black man's pinch[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion on basis of WP:RFD#DELETE, no. 7 novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. Probably not recently created enough for speedy delete. Rapido (talk) 11:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Definitely used: [1][2][3][4][5][6]. It sounds familiar to me. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Never heard of the term used in this pusillanimous form, but "n*gg*r's pinch" was fairly common in mid-20thC engineering practice for this fairly common minor workshop accident. So either spell it with an N as being historically accurate and WP:NOTCENSOR (please, I'm not advocating continued use of it) but don't water it down into an invented PC neologism. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no hits on Google for "nigger's pinch", which suggests "black man's pinch" is much more widely known. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - TMIQ's evidence seems to prove it's used. Bear in mind (for "Nigger's Pinch") that it was only common in mid-20thC, at which time Google didn't exist, 86.140.58.247 (talk) 19:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can only speak anecdotally, but this was the common name in my dialect (Cockney English) when I was young (I am 37 now). Not so common now, I think. Si Trew (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

User box[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross-namespace redirect. — ξxplicit 09:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Such redirects can be pretty handy for someone who does not know what a userbox is. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nothing that people should search for :) [fortunately I only became an admin after The Great Patriotic Userbox War). —Кузьма討論 19:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I was searching for wikipedia userboxes and came across this redirect which of course didn't work because someone has stuck a template on it. Very useful when people are looking for information on wikipedia user boxes. Jdrewitt (talk) 10:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by analogy to Jdrewitt's article. I often have great trouble finding a Wikipedia policy etc. which I know exists but can't recall exactly where. Helpful redirects like this do no harm, in my opinion, and some good. For articles that also have similar or identical titles in the Wikipedia namespace, such as principle of least astonishment, a "for... see..." at the top of the article helps, so having this as a redirect now in no ways precludes the later creation of a "User box" article. Si Trew (talk) 19:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Information about Stitch's cousins[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a suitable Wikipedia entry. Wikipedia is not made to answer such questions, anyway. Silly, pointless, implausible, unhelpful, and very likely hindering. Misses the point of Wikipedia altogether. Furthermore, a search such as "Information about West Virginia" (not one of the redirects above) on Google brings up the "West Virginia" Wikipedia article anyway. — The Man in Question (in question) 01:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete whole list. Although I realize entries are usually listed separately, I believe that all redirect entries that start with someone like "information about" or "facts on" are pointless and unhelpful clutter. When non-adept computer users type stuff like this in, the Wikipedia search engine gives a list of suggestions in search results anyway. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

A miserable failure[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep as google bomb redirect. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 21:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Obvious reasons. Like all presidents, he's been called a lot of things. That doesn't justify redirecting a phrase like this directly to his page. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE
Please note that since the RFD was created the redirect has been returned to its original traget Political Google bombs in the 2004 U.S. Presidential election.--76.66.181.142 (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

You betcha[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete without prejudice of recreation for a more... "useful" purpose. Killiondude (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Obvious reasons. She didn't invent the phrase and it's not a nickname for her. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

John+mccain[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely typo that is not recent and therefore not candidate for speedy deletion. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Implausible. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible that people type this in as URL, and I can't see how it can be harmful. —Кузьма討論 08:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it does not seem to me to be any more or less plausible than a redirect with a missing or extra space or one with some other character in place of the plus sign (e.g., John-mccain, John}mccain, John%mccain), both of which will usually be deleted. The redirect has no significant incoming links or page history and it receives, on average, approximately 10 pageviews per month. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible. I'm just not seeing Kusma's logic. Tavix |  Talk  18:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

New pope[edit]

The result of the discussion was redirect to Papal conclave. Killiondude (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. No utility. He's not new anymore, and after he's replaced it would cause a false redirect. Searching for "pope" by itself takes the user to a page that links to the current pope. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_27&oldid=1144401482"