Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 9

February 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 9, 2009

First Baptist Academy (disambiguation) → First Baptist Academy[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to have a redirect with a (disambiguation) dab on it as it is uneeded and implausable. Who in their right mind would search for something with (disambiguation) on the end of it? If anything, one might search for "First Baptist Academy (NAME OF CITY/STATE)", but the (disambiguation) seems a bit silly. Tavix (talk) 23:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it points to a disambiguation page with multiple entries; so it is not unexpected for the occasional editor to search for it with (disambiguation) on it. "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects to "Foo" are quite common in Wikipedia, and many savvy editors and readers know it. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:11, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by the highly unlikely chance that will happen, there is always a search function that will guide them to the right article. Tavix (talk) 00:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP. I think it says it all in addition to IP's rationale. B.Wind (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I would like to rule against WP:RFD#KEEP because none of the reasons are valid:

They have a potentially useful page history. - Nope, just two bot edits.
They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely - There is no other dab page of this nature, so there is no risk of creating dupes.
They aid searches on certain terms. - No, it is not a search term.
You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. - No, because nothing links there.
Someone finds them useful. - I can only speak for myself on this one, but I can't find any possibility of usefulness. The only possibility I could think of if someone typed it word for word into a search box, anticipating a disambiguation. The problem with that anology is, no one in their right mind would do that trying to find an article. Disambiguations are essentially redirects themselves, so it would be like a double redirect.
The redirect is to a plural form or to a singular form. - N/A —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs) 23:42, 10 February 2009

Now, let's compare it with WP:RFD#DELETE (and I disagree with you on on #2, #3 and #5 above - note the rest of #5 in WP:KEEP: Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.):

The redirect page makes it unreasonably difficult for users to locate similarly named articles via the search engine. Certainly not the case as it redirects to the appropriate dab page.
The redirect might cause confusion. For example, if "Adam B. Smith" was redirected to "Andrew B. Smith", because Andrew was accidentally called Adam in one source, this could cause confusion with the article on Adam Smith, so it should be deleted. again, since it redirect to a dab page covering the name of the search item, this is clearly not the case.
The redirect is offensive, such as "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" to "Joe Bloggs", unless "Joe Bloggs is a Loser" is discussed in the article. It's certainly not the case here, except possibly to people who object to the use of the word "disambiguation."
The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Google to love. The connection between the name of the redirect and the name of the target is self-evident.
It is a cross-namespace redirect out of article space, such as one pointing into the User or Wikipedia namespace. The major exception to this rule is the "CAT:" shortcut redirects, which technically are in the main article space but in practice form their own "pseudo-namespaces". This is not a CNR - both redirect and target are in articlespace.
If the redirect is broken, meaning it redirects to an article that does not exist or itself, it can be deleted immediately, though you should check that there is not an alternative place it could be appropriately redirected to first. As of this post, the wikilink is intact, so this does not apply.
If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created. As stated before, "Foo (disambiguation)" redirects are not novel (they have plenty of precedent in Wikipedia), nor are they implausible typos - in fact, they are used (and searched) rather frequently, especially in situations in which there are more known instances of something/someone with a common name than have Wikipedia articles at the time.

Sorry, but I don't see any of the parts of WP:RFD#DELETE applying here. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nominator seems to be under the mistaken impression that a redirect's only benefit is when used in the search box. That is incorrect. They are also beneficial when used in links and when articles names are typed directly into the browser's URL box. In both the later cases, redirects of this format are very useful as it is a standard naming convention for disambiguation pages. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ben Kitchen → Penis[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete G10 Tavix (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would qualify for CSD R3 except it was created around a year ago. Redirect makes absolutely no sense, I can find no relation between the redirect and the target. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 23:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this was originally targeted to Girls Aloud, an article whose edit history is loaded with repeated vandalism. Google search shows no notable Ben Kitchen, also. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

NOT:Paper → Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 11:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no NOT: subspace, making this a cross namespace redirect. The history is an interesting, but brief one: it was originally a cross-project redirect before it was retargeted to its current target. B.Wind (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Invented namespace, inappropriate redirect Usrnme h8er (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no reason for this redirect to exist, it's an unlikely search term and a (rather pointless) CNR. Richard ⁰⁶¹² 22:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a poor attempt at humour, invented namespace, needless cross-namespace redirect. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - such a namespace almost seems pointless anyway, as I think all pages in it would redirect to the same target (unless you used section redirects). However, as the object of this discussion points out, Wikipedia isn't paper - we don't need to delete things just because they of questionable usefulness. Brian Jason Drake 11:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - some of the other RfD discussions point out that there are other "invented" namespaces (T:, H:, MOS:). Brian Jason Drake 11:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While there are redirects in other invented namespaces, they are different from this redirect in at least one respect: the T:, H:, and MOS: "namespaces" have potential usefulness for hundreds of pages, while the usefulness of the NOT: "namespace" is limited to 1 or 2 pages. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

DBZ:BT → Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (series)‎#Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi‎[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DBZ:BT1 → Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (series)‎#Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi

DBZ:BT2 → Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (series)#Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2

DBZ:BT3 → Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (series)#Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 3

Not sure about this one, but I've never seen a shortcut to an article before. According to WP:SHORTCUT, they're supposed to be used for quick links to policy pages and projects, not articles. Redirects to page sections are acceptable, but I don't think shortcuts are. ('DBZ', of course, is not a valid namespace.)

Also nominating the similar shortcuts listed above, for the same reasons. Terraxos (talk) 04:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all four are cross namespace redirects as presented, and they seem unlikely to be widely used abbreviations for the series. B.Wind (talk) 04:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless someone can show that this is a very common way of speaking about the content (like WWII for World War II). The colon in the redirects is probably the colon from the article name, not a namespace colon but that doesn't change the uselessness of these redirects. Usrnme h8er (talk) 17:54, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Articles probably shouldn't get shortcuts, as I find that a shortcut is an easy way to tell that a link leads to something that isn't an article, but is instead a policy or project. The ones I've seen used most are typically policies, so I've unconsciously trained myself to consider a short all-caps link as a link to a policy page. Baradys (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Editing Template:Location map Russia Sakhalin Oblast → Template:Location map Russia Sakhalin Oblast[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted as CSD G6. the original creator is the one who moved it with an edit summary of "Typo" so it was obviously a mistake. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Created January 2009, this may qualify for CSD R3. The name of the redirect is a confusing one as it would appear atop the editing page for the target redirect. Whether it qualifies for speedy deletion or not, this inadvertent cross namespace redirect must go. B.Wind (talk) 04:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this thing seems to happen every few months. Obvious error in its creation. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This can, I think, safely be R3ed (or G2ed). Joe 20:29, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

February 2007 in the Middle East → Portal:Current events/Middle East/February 2007 in the Middle East[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all noting the that two scicne related ones have been filled up.Tikiwont (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the nominations below, this is a cross namespace redirect into Portal space. It seems also an unlikely search item as presented. With similar justifications, I also nominate:

B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom: recently created cross-namespace redirects with no history worth preserving. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Black Falcon -Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

May 1 in rail transport → Portal:Trains/Anniversaries/May 1/More[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all.Tikiwont (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect from articlespace to portal space. It seems also to be a very unlikely search item as presented. I also nominate (with the same justification) the similar cross namespace redirects:

These appear to be the only days represented by CNRs in this fashion. B.Wind (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I was the one that made the move. Tavix (talk) 03:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete the redirects - This is part of continuing work to move the MONTH DAY in rail transport pages to portal space as was discussed on AFD and at WikiProject Trains. Slambo (Speak) 12:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Star Trek further reading → Portal:Star Trek[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross namespace redirect into portal space with a much highly unlikely search item to boot. I also moninate the similar Star Trek Further Reading → Portal:Star Trek for deletion with the same justification. B.Wind (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a library: it is an encyclopedia! Namespace is not a reading room. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Redundant and cross-namespace redirect. - Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

April Fools Day 2005 → Portal:Current_events/April_1,_2005[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all.Tikiwont (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate cross namespace redirect from date to portal. There is nothing significant about that date, unlike December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001. With similar justifications, I also nominate:

These are the only dates that have CNR redirects to the Current Events Portal. I offer as an alternative moving the targets to the dates (with the first two still being deleted), as subsequent dates have similar material to that found in the targets above. B.Wind (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All - per nom. Alpha 4615 (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom. Unnecessary cross-namespace redirects. Robofish (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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