Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 11, 2009

Bunch of redirects to Comair Flight 191[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all.--Aervanath talks like a mover, but not a shaker 08:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If these people were mentioned in the article the redirect might make sense (only James PolehinkeComair Flight 191#Survivor does), but they're not. It can cause confusion with other people (with the same names) who are actually mentioned on Wikipedia. Either delete, or make all these articles into stubs, etc. As it stands, these redirects are just mysterious and unhelpful. Shreevatsa (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unlikely that anyone would search for individual non-notable victims. As noted above if they were mentioned in the it would be understandable, but as they stand now, they should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Redirects are cheap and those people were named in individual news sources (see for example [1], [2]). No need to delete them, they might be useful to some people. Regards SoWhy 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the redirects come with no explanation, they are actively harmful. E.g. The Shaggy D.A. links to a Christina Anderson (almost certainly a different one), and if these redirects are kept, following that link will take a reader to Comair Flight 191 with no explanation and no way to find out why. Shreevatsa (talk) 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree, it seems unlikely that anyone would search for these victims, especially given that they're not notable enough to be mentioned in the article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is a trend that, in aviation disaster articles with WP:GA status victims are mentioned in victim lists - See Gol_1907#Victims - This was made into a GA, so therefore any aircraft disaster could have a victim list. That would justify having these redirects. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This, that and the other [talk] 06:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Tavix (talk) 01:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete other than involvement in this one event, these people would be not be on WP, we don't need every event's victims to be redirected to the event (imagine 6,000,000 redirects to the Holocaust; a few thousand to 9/11; a few hundred to each big air or maritime disaster; etc.) WP is not a memorial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Satan's left big-toe toenailSatan[edit]

The result of the discussion was G3 Vandalism redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect, no mention of Satan's toenails is made in the article. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Judy Ann Santos awards and nominationsJudy Ann Santos[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep.(non-admin closure) Mastrchf (t/c) 16:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Delete please as an implausible redirect. Tavix (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep GFDL-counseled history maintenance; a good bit of content was, AFAICT, merged from the former to its target. Joe 06:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jahiegel. Other "awards and nominations" pages do exist, so it's not like this is a terribly unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 17:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:AVATAR/AANGAang[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was nominated for speedy deletion as unused and improbable. I tend to agree but R3 does not apply to it because it was created quite a long time ago. SoWhy 12:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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