Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 22[edit]

Joe Knight (Alaska Airlines Flight 261) → Alaska Airlines Flight 261[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 02:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implusible and unuseful search term. Wouldn't it be easier to search for "Alaska Airlines Flight 261" before search for Joe Knight with that awful disambiguation? I cannot see any use for this, and there is no substantial edit history, so Delete. Tavix (talk) 23:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete regardless of whether Joe Knight is mentioned in the target article (he isn't, by the way). B.Wind (talk) 23:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable search term, per nom Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are many redirects of plane crash participants to the crash article - they should all go, this one included. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I might as well hit them all up then. Tavix (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless he is actually mentioned in media outlets, and endorse deletion of similar redirects. Yellowweasel (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jami Bailey → Chuck Norris[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally prodded, but was removed because redirects cannot be prodded. Original prod stated "Inappropriate redirect. Jami Bailey, apparently, was merely one of many past opponents of Norris. It is not an alternate name for him." Tavix (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I was the (somewhat inexperienced) user who originally tried to prod this redirect. Since then I've looked into the single mention of Jami Bailey in Chuck Norris, found it to be unsourced and unmentioned in the appropriate references, and have deleted it. As a consequence, unless some user reverts that, the redirect is now even less meaningful. Tim Ross (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no mention in article, no clear need for redirect. --Rogerb67 (talk) 06:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:¬ → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why this redirect exists; it's only be used 10 times since December 2007, and has nothing to do with it's target, WP:NOT Pattont/c 20:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are not a student of symbolic logic, then. ☺ "¬" is a common symbolic representation of logical negation, the NOT operator. We have an encyclopaedia article on this. See Logical operation#Introduction. Uncle G (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol I never knew. Best to let the discussion run its course though as it's hardly used.--Pattont/c 20:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Persondata → Wikipedia:WikiProject Persondata[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Cross-namespace redirect with no meaningful page history. --Allen3 talk 00:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The WP type of redirects would make better sense. Versus22 talk 19:00, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as cross-namespace redirect. --Rogerb67 (talk) 06:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. Persondata is used for internal tracking and maintenance and anyone involved with it would surely be aware of the different namespaces. –Black Falcon (Talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Second White Civil War → World War II[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose Deletion. The term is inappropriate (Civil Wars are within a country) and it is not used anywhere Naraht (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete absolutly no mention on google.--Pattont/c 14:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear POV redirect Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it was a good faith redirect of a duplicate article, started under this title by GRGRGRGRGR (talk · contribs). Now whether the latter was filling Wikipedia with a distortion of history is another matter. But xe wasn't the editor who made the redirect. Uncle G (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Everyone who fought in WWII was white? Nonsense! Tavix (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - this borders on speedy deletion territory as inflammatory. It is hard to assume good faith with this, which also borders on WP:POINT. I didn't know that Japan was a "white" society! Also, the United States (and they weren't alone on this) had battalions of "people of color," too. B.Wind (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently a racist term that no one would identify as WWII so useless to boot. Note: historically, the monarchist side of the Russian civil war were termed the "whites" (as opposed to, you guessed it, the "reds"). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, And while the "whites" in the Russian Civil War did fight among themselves, I've never heard it called that... Naraht (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, the creator of the article which was changed to the redirect, GRGRGRGRGR (talk · contribs), only made two edits on Wikipedia. The article and "Hi" on his User page. Should he be notified as well? And any idea how long before RFD can be closed?Naraht (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With no opposition to deletion, any time (under WP:SNOW). Normally it runs about 5-7 days, with the more controversial ones lasting longer. I see no such controversy here. It's recommended to notify the creator of a redirect but not necessary (it is urged in the case of AfD and considered the civil thing to do).147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The user who changed the article to a Redirect has been notified, the original creator of the article which was turned into a redirect has not. I move to close and nuke the redirect...Naraht (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV and inflammatory. --Rogerb67 (talk) 06:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the editor who redirected this in good faith, I just didn't read anything like as much into it as you all obviously have. I would have absolutely no problems with a delete. Paste Let’s have a chat. 15:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_22&oldid=1138576653"