Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 7, 2009

Dave Thompson (Teacher)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was deleted under CSD R3- Recently created, implausible redirect. --Taelus (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps even a speedy delete. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 21:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

G-Zues[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As if. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 21:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a likely searching or linking term for the target. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as vandalism Josh Parris 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Satanophobia[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply not synonymous. Perhaps redirect to List of phobias, if not simply delete. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 21:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, why redirect it to the list of phobias, when there isn't a phobia in the list? Tavix |  Talk  23:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading redirect. --Taelus (talk) 11:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't redir it to list of phobias, because that's what I saved it from in the first place, because I assumed it was synonymous with Christianity. I still don't see how it isn't, but if it isn't, then just del it. Erudecorp ? * 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Satanophobia is the fear of Satan. No Christian doctrine teaches the fear of Satan; rather, the fear of God. Also, a phobia is an actual disorder—i.e., an irrational and extreme fear. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Donna Dunnings[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was  Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 21#Donna Dunnings. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that they are cousins doesn't seems to merit a redirect. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 21:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This was previously an article somebody turned into a Redirect in order to lump the information into the Todd Stroger article. Dunnings was not just Stroger's cousin, but Chief Financial Officer of one of the most important counties in the United States, the one which contains Chicago. Cook County has a population equal to some countries. Dunnings made front page news a couple of times in major Chicago newspapers, which because of the importance of Chicago and its suburban area, are among the major newspapers of the United States. H Padleckas (talk) 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't post it for discussion because Donna Dunnings is not notable; I posted it because Donna Dunnings is not Todd Stroger. — The Man in Question (in question) 03:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this Redirect to go specifically to the section where Donna Dunnings is discussed. H Padleckas (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The existence of this redirect may actually be a hindrance to people seeking information, because it will bring Wikipedia up on Google when other Internet sources will provide a more comprehensive description of the subject. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe the original Donna Dunnings article should be revived. If this redirect is erased, then the original article is lost from Wikipedia. H Padleckas (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am the one who changed the article to a redirect. I did that because I perceived WP:BLP issues with the Donna Dunnings article. She is known as a minor player in a political corruption scandal centered on Todd Stroger. The short article was more about the scandal than about her, and it represented her in a negative light. My Google searching found several articles about that scandal, all written shortly after the scandal broke. (After that, the story seemed to disappear from the news media.) I learned from the articles that she considered herself to be a mostly-innocent victim of Stroger's manipulations, not a perpetrator. My first inclination was to nominate the article for deletion (here's the diff in which I started that process), but then I decided that this was a WP:ONEVENT situation in which it would be best to merge the content about Dunnings into Todd Stroger and redirect this title to that page. That's what I did.
    Due to the WP:BLP problems with the article, I would strongly oppose recreating the article about her. I think it made sense to retarget the redirect to the section of the Stroger article that tells about Dunnings. (Thanks to H Padleckas for doing that.) --Orlady (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's keep the revised Redirect which is now more specifically targeted to the part of the Todd Stroger article where Donna Dunnings is discussed. I understand that when I wrote the article, it was more about the scandal than about her, but that was the newsworthy or notable part which should be included in the article (preferably in the introduction) to establish context. Significant work she did in her CFO capacity was likely important to her career and the county in general, but news sources tend to concentrate on scandals which tend to make reading more interesting and sell papers. Such work would have been includable in the article. I was hoping others would pick up and expand the article in true Wiki fashion, but it did not happen this time. H Padleckas (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At the time you created the article, it seemed reasonable to expect that Dunnings would remain in the public eye, and that additional information about her would emerge. As it happens, however, she quickly disappeared from the public scene. --Orlady (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rice Country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was  Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 21#Rice Country. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning escapes me. Not counting the day of its creation, viewed 10 times in November. Too broad a description to redirect to United States. — The Man in Question (in question) 21:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Rice Country" is a direct English translation of 「米国」, historically the most common term for the United States used in Japan (and rarely also in China). It's not likely to be a very common search term on enwiki, but in the absence of other meanings it's plausible for it to redirect there. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect (presuming it's a spelling error) to Rice County; but given the suggestion above, perhaps it ought to be a dab Josh Parris 01:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seeing the variety of results pulled up by Google, as nominator I think it should be dabified. — The Man in Question (in question) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Japanese redirects are not English and the US is not a native Japanese topic, so is an inappropriate redirect. Also, in English "rice country" typically would mean rice growing regions (like dairy country, or wheat country, tobacco country, etc), so the US is definitely not a reasonable redirect for that meaning. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, but there are a wide variety of redirects in other languages to United States. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for the US of A, I'd say that English, and any Native American language redirect should exist for the actual name and common slang names. For Spanish and French (US - Puerto Rico, Louisiana) those used by US populations should remain since PR uses Spanish officially and LA tries to keep its French population around. Redirects from other languages, or translations into English of slang terms from other languages should not exist unless they have currency/prominence in English, in which case they would be English slang names for the US, and thus not a foreign redirect in any case. "rice country" is a translation of a Japanese name for the US, it's not a romanization of the Japanese term, it's a translation; it would be more reasonable to have 米国 as a redirect, except that we shouldn't because it's not English and the US is not a Japanese-speaking place or formerly ruled by Japan. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Disambig, it's a plausible redirect term, but there are other uses for the term. A dab page seems perfect for the job here. --Taelus (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Disambiguate between what? — The Man in Question (in question) 23:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

US and A[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:35, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently created as a tribute to Borat. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 21:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. This is almost certainly a tribute to Borat, but that means that keeping a redirect here is better than having Borat-inspired nonsense created at this title. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; not blocking an article, getting traffic, going to intended destination Josh Parris 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gertrude Metlen Wolfram[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Keep. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All very strange. Undetected double redirect. Alma White College is a redirect and a full article. No mention of Wolfram in target's target. I'm not really sure what's to be made of this. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 21:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - By reverting this improper edit at Alma White College which created the strange double redirect. Gertrude Metlen Wolfram was originally directed to this article. The double redirect was created with the summary "college does not exist" and directed to the Somerset Christian College which apparently occupies the same site, but was founded more twenty years after the end of Alma White College. If the two college articles need to be merged, then proper procedure is a discussion on the talk pages. — CactusWriter | needles 21:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A nanosecond of investigation finds that User:Rak-Tai made Alma White College into a redirect because "the college does not exist". While the college no longer exists, it did, and was notable, I have reverted that change. Rak-Tai has vandalized the article on previous occasions and may have some unresolved conflict with the church, that keeps drawing him to the article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the article has been restored, as nominator I vote Keep. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Unitesd states[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction of an s seems unfounded. Typos like Unitepd States or Unitead States don't exist, and neither should this. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 21:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC) — The Man in Question (gesprec) 21:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, 128 hits so far in 2009, a plausible typo. Saying it should be deleted because two similiar typos don't have redirects isn't a good reason. XLerate (talk) 00:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep providing a useful service Josh Parris 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Unitedstatesian[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete Unitedstater and Retarget Unitedstatesian to People of the United States. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silliness. Viewed 15 and 3 times, respectively, in November. If not delete, then redirect to People of the United States. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 20:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Unitedstatesian as suggested above; it's a somewhat common proposed alternative for "American" by people who object to "American" as a term for people from the United States. Delete Unitedstater; as far as I can tell it's completely original to the creator of this redirect and not otherwise in use. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget Unitedstatesian per Gavia immer, and Delete Unitedstater as above Josh Parris 03:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

USia[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? 329 pageviews in November presumably from people searching for USIA. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 20:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes, I don't know exactly how Wikipedia article traffic statistics calculates things, but USia and USIA seem to be lumped as one, though they target separate articles. I have no idea what the pageview statistics are, then. I say again delete. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that is difficult, we need a bug raised. Josh Parris 04:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to USIA, as it could cause problems otherwise. Not really a plausible search term for United States. --Taelus (talk) 11:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - since USIA is an all-caps redirects, it is case-insensitive to searches. Thus, any search for the letters "usia" (no matter which letters are capitalised) will be handled by the redirect USIA. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia.[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do these kinds of redirects get created in the first place? — The Man in Question (gesprec) 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ikipedia[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really see this coming up. 417 pageviews in November are presumably from people who didn't press the W key hard enough. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, www.Ikipedia.com is an actual site, and the pageviews are then presumably people trying to figure out what it is. Since it is not Wikipedia, and does not have its own page, the redirect shoulded be deleted as making no sense. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article needed Josh Parris 04:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a red link will encourage the article to be created for the correct website. It is misleading in its current form. --Taelus (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wiiikipedia[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem particularly plausible, especially the first. Viewed 8 and 19 times in November 2009. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 20:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, don't seem plausible but the traffic indicates otherwise; distributed throughout the year, not just a spike, for both. XLerate (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep like XLerate says Josh Parris 04:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. --MisterWiki talk contribs 14:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Traffic indicates it's a useful redirect of a misspelling. Steven Walling 00:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dubbiya[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:20, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous spellings. Dubya, Doubya, and Dubbya already exist as redirects to List of United States presidential nicknames#George_Walker_Bush. 7, 10, and 4 pageviews in November, respectively. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 10:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

G Dubya B[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not something anyone would look up. 12 and 11 pageviews this November, respectively. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 10:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bush jnr[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highly improbable. "Jnr"? 12 pageviews this November. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 10:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep outside of the USA we're not all that familiar with this "Jr" stuff, so "Jnr" is plausible -- but the all lower case explains the low hit count. Josh Parris 10:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, improbable. Tavix |  Talk  17:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mr. President 43[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. 3 pageviews this November. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 10:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Many countries have had/will have 43 presidents. GWB is just one of them. Josh Parris 10:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Barakc Obama[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible typo, but not a plausible mistaken spelling. Redirects like Crhistopher Columbus don't exist, and neither should this. 27 pageviews in November. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 10:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep it hurts not, and one a day is not shabby. Josh Parris 10:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, plausible typo, harmless, and apparently actually useful. — Kusma talk 13:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

OBAMA![edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:54, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible redirect, contrary to creator's peculiar claim. No page history. 13 pageviews in November. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 10:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone searching for actual information on the phrase "OBAMA!" will not find it at Barack Obama. If the page is not deleted, it should be redirected to James David Manning. Unfortunately, this could lead to some confusion on Google search, etc. Therefore the redirect is serving only to hinder searches for either the phrase or the president. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ob ama[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem plausible. 12 pageviews in November. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 10:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think we decided that additional spaces were an implausible typo Josh Parris 10:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, harmless. 12 pageviews seems like it happens often enough. (Or are these people looking for something else?) — Kusma talk 13:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Space bars on labtops get in the way often enough. RoyalMate1 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - while we should have redirects for plausible typos, we should not have redirects for every possible error. I think that randomly inserting spaces after letters, which seems to be the case here, falls into the second category. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 05:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shit (euphemism)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Euphemism of what? — The Man in Question (gesprec) 08:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no history, no links, no traffic, history indicates it was intended for use in a dab page, but currently isn't. Josh Parris 09:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, you are correct I created it for just that purpose. Abtract (talk) 06:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsuitable as a redirect as it is an unused disambiguation term. --Taelus (talk) 11:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Muda fooka[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

116 hits on Google. Five pageviews in November. Worthless redirect. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 08:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd really like to hear why the original author (who is still active and contributing) added this, they seem focused on Rap articles. Josh Parris 09:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know for sure why it is created however I belive that this might be a way to say Motherfucker. I don't think we need this redirect but if we do keep it the Motherfucker artilce is a likely a better choice than this.--70.24.181.206 (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True; if it's kept, it should be retargeted to Motherfucker. — The Man in Question (in question) 03:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fûck[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No one will ever type this in search. Three hits this November. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 08:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no history, no links, no traffic. Josh Parris 09:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fuck.[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Karl Wilhelm Gottlieb Leopold Fuckel. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 15:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless period. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 08:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't know if the abbreviation "caused trouble", but it does seem to have been used fairly widely. A search for "Aleuria" (a genus described by Fuckel) with the abbreviated form of his surname comes up with several dozen perfectly decent biological hits. You get considerably more using the "standard form" ("Fuckel", according to the authoritative ipni.org), but that's only to be expected. It would be perfectly understandable for someone to write an article based on sources that give a nomenclatural authority as "Fuck.", and expect that to redirect to Karl Wilhelm Gottlieb Leopold Fuckel. This 1920s flora deliberately uses "Fuck." as an abbreviation for Fuckel, and lists it in the table of abbreviations (p. 18); it was merely the first work I came across when looking. Whether Fuck. should lead to a disambiguation page, or to Fuckel's article, or somewhere else, I don't know, but there has to be some clear route to Karl Wilhelm Gottlieb Leopold Fuckel. In short: this isn't a hoax; some sources do use "Fuck." to refer to Fuckel. I would expect this to work like Hook., which redirects to the botanist William Jackson Hooker, while Hook deals with meanings of "hook" (without the dot). --Stemonitis (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they do, but there are no linked articles at the moment. Josh Parris 10:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

FUDIE[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly acronym for "Fuck U and DIE". Not mentioned in target article. Not even to be found on Urban Dictionary ([1]). Not a popular Wikipedia search [2]. If not delete, then retarget to Internet slang. — The Man in Question (gesprec) 08:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no useful history, no links, no traffic. It was very kind of you to notify the IP that created this five years ago of this discussion! Josh Parris 09:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Glaciers of Gabon[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did Gabon ever have glaciers? I have serious doubts about the usefulness of this and the other similar redirects just created by this user. Drmies (talk) 05:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a redirect, supporting an entry in the Outline of Gabon, by pointing to the relevant information. Gabon has no glaciers. Readers researching countries may wish to know which ones do and which ones don't. If the outline entry is left out, that creates an ambiguity in which the reader may not be able to tell if the country has no glaciers or if the outline just isn't completed yet. We ran into a similar problem with countries with no navies (due to being landlocked, etc.). The decision of the RfD was to keep the redirects, because they pointed to where on Wikipedia it was explained that each particular country had no navy. Useful and relevant, especially to young readers. But I didn't know which countries in Africa had no glaciers either, and I'm not all that young - and the info wasn't very easy to track down, but now it is due to redirection. The Transhumanist 05:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand the rationale here. Because your (standard?) list of features in this outline contains an entry for glaciers, which there aren't, there should be a redirect for young readers pointing them to an article on the disappearance of glaciers, which is irrelevant here because there are/were no glaciers that can disappear? Young readers will be very confused, as I am. That some countries in Africa, but not Gabon, have glaciers strikes me as entirely irrelevant. What's next, a redirect for Fjords of Gabon? And where will that lead? Are there any fjords in Africa in the first place? Drmies (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no redirect for Navy of Gabon either. Decstop (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fjords of Gabon? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Having this redirect is unprofessional, and the reason given by TT is poor - it should be removed from his "outline". I see no sensible reason to keep this redirect (not a typo, or something people would realistically be looking for). Verbal chat 08:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the other over-30 new redirects created by this user, to the same subsection, should also be deleted. Unfortunately this unilateral large scale editing seems to suggest a return to problematic editing for this user. Verbal chat 08:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal, I was not trying to make a more general point extending outside the discussion of this and similar redirects--but I am feeling you. Drmies (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As misleading since it gives the impresion that there was at some point glaciers in Gabon. Taemyr (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Gabon isn't mentioned in the article for (not) having glaciers. Tavix |  Talk  23:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Portal:Scientific method[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was  Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 21#Portal:Scientific method. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:24, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This portal was deleted here [3], then recreated as a redirect. Decstop (talk) 04:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it was recreated as a redirect a week after deletion. That's what happens when someone deletes something that's getting over a hundred hits a day without cleaning up enough of the internal links. Remove the (viable, non-talk) internal links, wait a month so we can see the traffic die off, and then bring it back here for deletion. In the meantime, there may be a more appropriate portal to point to. Josh Parris 04:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...Remove the (viable, non-talk) internal links, ... Done Decstop (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The number of page hits has been falling off over time, but it's still getting 10-20 a day, which in my opinion is too high to kill the redirect; I think it will keep falling to the point where deleting the redirect won't break anything much. I hope when we close this we can see a sudden fall-off and can delete, but I doubt it. Josh Parris 09:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just keep it. It is perfectly reasonable. Redirects do no harm. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but include a link to Portal:Philosophy of science in the deletion summary. In the week before Decstop's link cleanup on December 7 (i.e., November 30 – December 6), the redirect received about 14 hits per day; in the week after the cleanup (December 8 – December 14), the portal has been receiving less than 8 hits per day, and I would guess that most of that's from this RfD discussion. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Guydo Baggins[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; nonsense redirect; "Guydo Baggins" not mentioned in article -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Guydo" is a likely hoax, I would say. BOZ (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the history is of a vandal created article that was WP:ZAPped; but interestingly enough there are many hits on the article, so I'm torn. Where should we send the external visitors? Josh Parris 04:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fishing in unfamiliar waters when it comes to D&D, but this here seems to suggest "Guido Baggins" was simply made up by some game player. Also, note this. The use of "likely" here pushes me to a Delete. "Guydo Baggins"/"Guido Baggins" seems to be somebody's username, and therefore WP:G3 or WP:A7 (if that can be applied to redirects) or something like it. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete [links:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guydo_Baggins no external links] Josh Parris 10:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

MAYORS OF AGRA[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is in ALL CAPS and as such is unlikely to aid navigation. In addition, redirecting "Mayors of Agra" to a single mayor is probably misleading and not a good idea. Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 7 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_7&oldid=1136083754"