Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 3, 2009

KOKC-AM → KOKC (AM)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy keep Cenarium (Talk) 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The KOKC-AM redirect should be deleted as it is an incorrect callsign and not an "end all, be all" redirect to the KOKC (AM) page. The parent page can be found by the KOKC disambig page along with the parent page. This should be an uncontroversial deletion of an unnecessary redirect. NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 00:56

  • Keep per Wikipedia:R#Reasons for not deleting #2 (to prevent accidental creation at the wrong name and because it seems like a valid search term: see [1] and [2], for instance) & #5 (it isn't uncontroversial; as attested at the administrator's noticeboard). As a final note to the closer, please be aware that this was placed on the wrong day. The RfD was opened, as the timestamp and history verify, on February 4th. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - My mistake on adding this on the 3rd. First time doing an RfD, so my apologizes. - NeutralHomer • Talk • February 4, 2009 @ 01:35
  • Keep - plausible search term, used by many sources including the station itself. --NE2 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per NE2, MRG and because redirects are cheap. –xeno (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Quite likely search term. •••Life of Riley (talk) 02:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - both terms are interchangeable; many, if not most AM stations in the United States use the -AM suffix from time to time, even if there is no FM or TV station with the same calls. B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a plausible variant of the target; there's no reason to delete it. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Watched this at WP:AN and it is totally plausible as something one would type in. The argument appears to be put forward that it is a popular misconception, which I don't think rings true as a reason to get rid of it. Narson'sPetFerret (talk) 12:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Taper(Concert) → Taper (concert)[edit]

The result of the discussion was R3 deleted. No need to discuss this one – iridescent 00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typo when making article, does not need to persist. Tagishsimon (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a moved page. The redirect only existed as the original article for 3 weeks with a typo in its title. Also, there are no incoming links. Delete. - Steve3849 talk 00:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shit scared → Fight-or-flight response[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. May be useful for readers. Ruslik (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. David Pro (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very strong keep. In every version of English I've ever heard spoken, "shit scared" or "shitting yourself" is by far the most commonly used term for "fight-or-flight response" in common usage, to the extent that I'd say far more know it only by some variation of "shit scared" than even know what the formal term means. – iridescent 22:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have never heard of "shit scared" (and most of the people I know are prone to random vulgarity). JuJube (talk) 01:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in the Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms, though not necessarily meaning exactly this. Other sources show that it's used and equivalent to "scared shitless" (which also redirects here). --NE2 01:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is genuine dialectical variant of "scared shitless"; if redirecting the latter to Fight or flight response is uncontroversial (and it seems to be), then this one should be fine pointing to the same place. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Fear as its a common slang term for very scared. PaulJones (talk) 07:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just means very scared, similar to "shit hot" so i don't find it very useful. If a reader doesn't know that shit can be used to emphasise an adjective, they should be using wiktionary. But if readers with limited English do search for it, it would be more useful retargeted to Fear, as there is no special connection to the biological concept of fight or flight compared to the normal meaning of fear. I don't think lads in town saying "huhhuh, look, he's shit scared" are thinking of F or F, they are just saying he is very scared. The dictionary of idioms above concurs.Yobmod (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Shit" in this context isn't "used to emphasise an adjective", as with "shit hot" – it (along with the American variant of "scared shitless") is a literal reference to the physiology of the stress response. – iridescent 12:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep Very common phrase that means this, per Iridescent.--Pattont/c 19:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

CATOMA OUTDOOR → Catoma Outdoor[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted as copyright violation.  – iridescent 23:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary verging on spam Tagishsimon (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK by me to delete it. The title started out as all caps and I came close to deleting the article as spam. This was the redirect created by the system when I moved it and I probably should have deleted it in the first place. The article seems to establish notability, but man, is it spammy. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shitbury's → Sainsbury's[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedily deleted CSD G10 by User:Edgar181 (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another "is there such a thing as a derogatory redirect?" (see below). Exactly the same reasons. Also nominating Shitburys.  – iridescent 11:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per criterion G10 (attack page). I have tagged them as such. There's no evidence these are useful as anything other than an attack, and G10 definitely does apply to redirects. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as it is no help to a user. PaulJones (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shite Compared to AutoRune → SCAR (programming language)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. Target was deleted at AFD so this debate is now moot. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there such a thing as a derogatory redirect? This doesn't even have the "plausible search term" defense that the Saint Pancake → Rachel Corrie debate currently flaring across ANI has. Also nominating Shit Compared to AutoRune for the same reason. – iridescent 11:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Both redirects. I don't see the use for any of these links. --McSly (talk) 15:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. According to some sources [3] [4] this really is what SCAR stands for. I believe the second of the links I've given is by the developer of SCAR himself. We shouldn't censor ourselves merely because the developer's chosen name for his own software is mildly obscene. However, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCAR (programming language) (2nd nomination): it's possible the main article still deserves deleting, in which case keeping the redirects would be pointless. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obviously, if it's a genuine name as opposed to a redirect created by a disgruntled user (as with the "Shitburys" above), that's a different matter. – iridescent 18:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • But neither of the external links above are to reliable sources, and considering that the target article itself (which has no links to reliable sources per WP:V and WP:N - and is a "successor" to an article that was deleted by AfD) is on shaky ground, we cannot rely upon the "sources" to determine if that is the actual source of the name (the target doesn't mention it at all, by the way). So, without the context, this becomes a harmful redirect; thus delete. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article. In this case I think Kaitnieks should be considered an established expert on SCAR since he's the developer. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You might want to read the rest of WP:V as it also pertains here. A blog is still questionable, for example. In addition, (from WP:V) However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. For example, a reliable self-published source on a given subject is likely to have been cited on that subject as authoritative by a reliable source. This apparently has yet to happen in this case. Furthermore, the one site attributed to Eppstein makes no mention of the so-called name that is asserted in this discussion to be the full name of the programming language (go to that page and use either the Firefox or IE search for "shit" - and the article is "shit"less). I didn't even bother with the geocities site as it is at best questionable. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's because he's "starred out" the Naughty Word; search for "compared" and you'll find it. – iridescent 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Check the site that bears his name (www.kaitnieks.com) - the only occurrence of the string "shi" is in the middle of the word "fishing". The geocities site has the "starred out" words. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've nominated the redirect target for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SCAR (programming language) (third nomination). So the issue may eventually become moot. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete now that the target is gone. I think we can close now. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the meaning of the name is added to the target with a reliable source. Sounds fake and the article doesn't mention it, therefore needs a source. Think even the target should be deleted anyway.Yobmod (talk) 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - target deleted per AfD. B.Wind (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Turd burgler → Beavis and Butt-head[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless (and misspelt) redirect, but it's existed since 2005 so maybe I'm missing something here. If we really need to have it, it should (a) be spelt correctly and (b) point to Terminology of homosexuality#Male or British slang#Meanings – the term may have been used on Beavis and Butt-head but other than that I'm not aware of any connection.  – iridescent 11:37, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fohib → HI[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DEL: Edit summary is "create redirect for possible spelling error of "hi" caused by accidentally spilling milk on a cordless keyboard." R3 would apply, and "nearly a year" is pretty recent -- but probably not as recent as CSD intends. Amusing, good-hearted or at worst drunkenly negligent, and does no direct harm, but (unless as a BJaODN entry) indirectly invites other attempts at "innocent vandalism" & thus interferes w/ vand control.
--Jerzy•t 05:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, although good for a laugh! Such a misspelling might also be caused by my cat walking across the keyboard. •••Life of Riley (talk) 05:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete o_O JuJube (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My cat says "delete". He couldn't think of a good alternative target, either. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of above, including IP's cat. B.Wind (talk) 03:39, 9 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_3&oldid=1145633662"