Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 30, 2009

Self titled album[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to List of eponymous albums. Non-admin closure. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination. Redirect was proposed for deletion with rationale: "generic album name. Not specific enough for a redirect". Taelus (talk) 22:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Passengers of TWA Flight 800[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shannon Lychner
Katie Lychner
Katherine Lychner
Dalila Lucien
Arlene Johnsen
Anne Marie Shorter
Ralph Kevorkian
Michelle Becker
Rebecca Olsen
James Hurd III
Michele Becker
Michele Jean Becker
Michelle Jean Becker
Becky Olsen
Michelle Baker
Jamie Hurd
James Henry Hurd
James Henry Hurd III
James "Jamie" Henry Hurd III
Shannon Evan Lychner
Katherine Elizabeth Lychner
Andrew Krukar

Delete as non-notable passengers "known" exclusively for flying on TWA Flight 800. They are implausible search terms and anyone searching for one of these people are either searching for someone else, or finding a dead end as none of these people are discussed in the main article. Tavix |  Talk  22:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Rev (The Reverend Tholomew Plague)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an unneeded disambiguation qualifier making for an implausible search term. Possible retarget to The Rev. Tavix |  Talk  21:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

'Entropy' Split One-Sided 12" with Javelins[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pope Benedict XVII[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination. Redirect was proposed for deletion with rationale: "There is no Pope Benedict XVII, so a redirect from that name is inappropriate." Page is tagged as a redirect from misspelling. Taelus (talk) 17:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The intent of the creator - me - was a redirect for mispelling. Hektor (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think a redirect should come from a plausible misspelling. When I type "Pope Benedict XVIII" into the search box, Wikipedia asks me "Did you mean: Pope Benedict XVI?" I get the same response when I type "Pope Benerdict XVI". Since the search engine can handle this properly, I don't see the need for this redirect. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because of our great search engine this very uncommon mispelling isn't necessary. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't consider the wrong number to be a misspelling. Benedict XVII refers to possibly a future pope, not him, and I don't consider the redirect to be appropriate. The search engine will handle it. When a redirect like this does take one directly to Pope Benedict XVI's page, the user might not realize s/he was wrong about the number, too. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Benedict XVII[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination. Redirect was proposed for deletion with reason: "There is no Pope or Antipope Benedict XVII, so a redirect from that name is inappropriate." Page is marked as redirect from misspelling. Taelus (talk) 16:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The intent of the creator - me - was a redirect for mispelling. Hektor (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think a redirect should come from a plausible misspelling. When I type "Benedict XVIII" into the search box, Wikipedia asks me "Did you mean: Benedict XVI?" I get the same response when I type "Benerdict XVI". Since the search engine can handle this properly, I don't see the need for this redirect. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because of our great search engine this very uncommon mispelling isn't necessary. --Atlan da Gonozal (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't consider the wrong number to be a misspelling. Benedict XVII refers to possibly a future pope, not him, and I don't consider the redirect to be appropriate. The search engine will handle it. When a redirect like this does take one directly to Pope Benedict XVI's page, the user might not realize s/he was wrong about the number, too. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 05:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Interweb[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion on basis of WP:RFD#DELETE, no. 7 novel or very obscure synonym for an article name. Rapido (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, lots of pagehits, not that obscure as it is used somewhat in popular culture. Whilst some may be comical searches, we cannot assume this for everyone. I see no harm in keeping this redirect as a navigational aid. --Taelus (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ha! I honestly know people who refer to it by no other name than this. — The Man in Question (in question) 18:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We had an article on the subject of the term "interweb" at this location for several years, and there may be several external pages which link to it. Leaving the redirect in place leaves less of a scar than a deleted page does.--Father Goose (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as pop culture reference. omg itz the interwebz!! Tavix |  Talk  21:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gercockennoggin[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable search term. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of words rose says in the golden girls[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable search term. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, firstly as unlikely search term, secondly as misleading title, thirdly as nonsense. Wikipedia will never collect indiscriminate information such as this. --Taelus (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Burma (now Myanmar)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:04, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Minimal pageviews, no meaningful history, no links. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:35, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bombshells[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Bombshells ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting redirection to Bombshell as the plural or the term instead of to the TV episode. Labattblueboy (talk) 04:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose it should redirect to the dab page Bombshell (disambiguation); NOTE - the dab page is under a WP:RM to move it to the primary name, see Talk:Bombshell (disambiguation) . 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the dab page has now moved to the primary name Bombshell, so I now no longer oppose this retargetting, as it would target the dab page. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ClockC Wait for the result of the Requested Move. Personally I would redirect it to Bombshell, however that in itself may become a redirect as a result of the move request... Thus it is difficult to comment for now. --Taelus (talk) 16:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support change of target now that the requested move has been performed. Might be best to boldly perform this now? --Taelus (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Obamaism[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. The major usage of the phrase appears to be significantly different from that of Bushism, and is inline with the current target as the Keep !votes state. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page edited in dibs and dabs to either redirect to communism, socialism, or cover speaking gaffes. Not needed. Sceptre (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I tend to agree with Sceptre's analysis of the facts. This is not a widely used term, unlike the similar, but far more notable Bushism. It's been abused by WikiWarriors, and as such should probably be deleted. UnitAnode 02:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I worked hard on that article. I did the AFD just to see if it was acceptable. The term pulls up about 200,000 google hits. The only reason it was blanked was for obvious political bias. Thank you Grs115 and Unitard for turning wikipedia into the opposite of conservapedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd do well to keep your "tard" insults in check, Saturn. UnitAnode 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a joke. Was referring to Unitard. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure you were. <roll eyes> UnitAnode 04:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have anything to do with a particular "bias" that William claims. It has everything to do with the fact that it was created only after his deletion nomination of Bushism (which was pointedly based on some "precedent" he claimed existed because a marginally similar article of Obama was deleted) resulted in the article being keep. Moreso, in a large majority of cases, a search for "Obamaism" returns links referring to alleged similarities to communism or socialism, not speaking errors as it does for Bushisms. There may be a plausible redirect target that I'll support if one is proposed. Grsz11 04:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also note, I simply reverted to the previous redirect, and don't paricularly endorse Barack Obama as a legitimate target. Grsz11 04:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully permprot as a redirect to Barack Obama, #44. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not redirect anywhere. This is a WP:OR neologism. A redirct to Barack Obama is simply a political smear on the bio subject by falsely suggesting a notable use of the neologism. LotLE×talk 19:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary?...
           Did you mean: onanism
    Er, nevermind.--Father Goose (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This term gets tossed around enough to the point where it couldn't hurt to leave it. Tavix |  Talk  21:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pulitzer-winning columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote, "Fairness through leveling is the essence of Obamaism," which seems like a valid enough instance to merit a redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

I created it to give a name to his political philosophy that may or may not become unique enough to be named after him (like Maoism, Leninism, Marxism, Stalinism or Jeffersonian, Jacksonian, etc... and I'm NOT suggesting that he's a socialist or a communist!), not necessarily for his quotes. I was thinking that such an article would be started and I merely wanted to be the one who started it. I don't know if his philosophy is yet unique enough... but maybe it is. All I know is that he's the President and I hope that whatever he gets done works for the American people. Neanderthalprimadonna (talk) 06:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of traps in the Saw film series[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Ryan4314 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as incredibly likely search term (one of our most requested articles!). Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    People merely click on it's red link on the most requested page, no-one is likely to type the words: "List-of-traps-in-the-Saw-film-series". Ryan4314 (talk) 01:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have used that search phrase before and I would imagine many others do as well. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 01:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then the search engine should take them to Saw (franchise). I disagree that Wikipedia should be "assisting" search engines with this sort of thing, search engines should be able to work this out for themselves. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Random and implausible. Target article does not provide the information as a list or in any other format, anyway. The somewhat high flow of traffic (184 in November) is undoubtedly do to the links—none of which are in the mainspace. — The Man in Question (in question) 07:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I created the link as it was one of the most requested articles, but had been deleted at AFD. So the article was not going to exist, but pointing it somewhere relevant would serve the readers better than nothing at all. You know, the people this is all supposedly for - David Gerard (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cannot see the point in this redirect. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete, I appreciate that it is a search term that is used, however we simply do not have the relevant information on Wikipedia, and consensus in the AfD was not to compile it. Personally I feel that redirects such as these do more harm than good, as some users may get redirected, then look around all the blue links on the target page for a list they simply will be unable to find. It would be better to inform them right away that there is no such page on Wikipedia, rather than send them hunting for information that is not present. --Taelus (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yup... its a searchable term... at least for the large cult following of this franchise who have interest in this specific search parameter [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], and many more. The redirect will at least take them to where the topic is covered and has notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    People who want to read a list of traps used in the Saw films should not be redirected to Wikipedia, because they will not find one here. Keeping redirects like this reorders Google search so that Wikipedia turns up earlier and often first when other sites, such as fansites, are much better equipped to meet the searcher's needs. This sort of redirect is actively unhelpful. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: It's not a "searchable term." It's a complex search phrase of the type people put into Google, not Wikipedia, and for which there are an indefinite list of variations. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I fail to see what Schmidt means by "searchable term". — The Man in Question (in question) 10:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MichealQSchmit --Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 16:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need to be: 1) priming default search results with non-existent pages, and 2) making pages with odd extended search phrases for titles that only redirect to a general article rather than sending people to what's promised. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 06:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible search term, "list of traps in the saw films" gets two Google hits, neither with any content, I don't think anyone's likely to type it into the Wikipedia search bar and since such a list does not exist in mainspace it's misleading to imply it does. Guest9999 (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Since Saw (franchise) contains no such list, it's better to direct the reader to a search page than an article that does not contain the information they're looking for. Jafeluv (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2010 (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_30&oldid=1136448615"