Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 27, 2009

Various redirects to KORB[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep all. (non-admin closure) Mastrchf (t/c) 13:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user created some pages for radio station KORB and kinda went overboard in creations, this (a translator page) redirects to KORB and probably won't be used for anything in the future. Deletion won't cause any harm. - NeutralHomer • Talk • January 28, 2009 @ 00:55

Note: These were originally all nominated separately. I have consolidated them into one section for ease of discussion.--Aervanath (talk) 03:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete all - these seem like unlikely search terms to me, and aren't mentioned in the target article. Terraxos (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Keep per below; apologies for my poor reading skills on this one. Terraxos (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. All are mentioned in the target article. The real problem here is that the target has virtually no prose to put all of these in context, but the first three are translators (at various FM frequencies) listed in a grid on the page; the next two are the station's on-air branding (as indicated in the infobox); the last is a natural redirect as KORB is an FM station. There is nothing in WP:RFD#DELETE that would apply here; in fact, WP:RFD#KEEP would indicate that all of these should be kept. While it is highly unlikely that calls for translators would be used instead of the primary emitter, it is possible for someone who lives close to one of those towers to know it by the translator's call letters. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the IP said it all; I cannot add to it. Those are all valid redirects. B.Wind (talk) 06:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All - No valid reason to delete them, and redirects are cheap. JPG-GR (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for reasons given above. PaulJones (talk) 21:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia talk abbreviations → Wikipedia:Glossary[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate CNR, unlikely typo MBisanz talk 21:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - too unlikely a search term to be worth using even as a cross-namespace redirect. Terraxos (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross namespace redirect Tavix (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ontario Mega Finance Group → Internet slang[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete per WP:SNOW.--Aervanath (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was previously discussed in a bundled discussion, but I feel this deserves an individual, second discussion. In a Google search for "Ontario Mega Finance Group", there were only ~375 hits, and I couldn't find anything dealing blatantly about internet slang. Secondly, the internet slang article doesn't have any information about the "group" so one trying to find that information will be directed to the wrong place. Tavix (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the history is an interesting one. It was created to redirect to its initials, OMFG, but he/she was unaware of the Internet usage of the acronym (it was already a redirect at the time; so a bot retargeted it to its current direction... in 2006). Had this taken place in late 2008, this would have been speedied, but I think that the "recent" requirement should be waived as it is clearly an unintended, unloved mistake that should be put out of its misery. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As nominator of the previous bundled set, after I went through retargeting some and analysing others, this was one that I had earmarked for relisting at RfD. 147.70.242.54 has said it all, essentially: a very unlikely search term in existence due to a mistake. Richard0612 21:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that this one's entirely uncontroversial. It's the result of a bizarre accident, and serves no useful purpose. We can surely delete this with no prejudice against the creation of either a meaningful redirect or an article. Uncle G (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - obviously inappropriate as a redirect; if anyone wants to try writing an article on the company, they're welcome to do so, but it doesn't look to me like it would pass notability. Terraxos (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless it's replaced by an article. As noted, this appears to just be a compound error. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Michael Jackson's sexual orientation → 1993 child sexual abuse accusations against Michael Jackson[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under WP:CSD#G4. Was originally deleted at Rfd in March 2006. See Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion/Redirect_Archives/March_2006#March_2 (the fourth one down). Anybody seeking to re-create this must go through WP:DRV first.--Aervanath (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The redirect links to an article which does not mention Jackson's sexual orientation, it only speaks of allegations which were made against him in 1993. Reading this article will not reveal Jackson's orientation, only Jackson truly knows such a personal thing. The redirect may also imply that Jackson's sexual persuasion is that of a pedophile. Pyrrhus16 17:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Retarget to Michael Jackson with a preference to delete it since the main article really doesn't mention his sexual orientation either. Tavix (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP. One has nothing to do with the other, and the implication of the name of the redirect could be a violation of WP:BLP as defamatory.147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pure speculation, likely an attack piece, have nothing to do with the article I wrote. Only Michael Jackson knows if he's Straight/gay/bi/tri/asexual/into animals. Thus far, he maintains he's a heterosexual, leave the poor guy some dignity. — Realist2 00:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G10 - likely created as attack page. Terraxos (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It garnered a consensus for deletion at Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/March 2006#March 2, and was in fact originally created, the first time, as the byproduct of an AFD discussion of a few days earlier: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Baden-Powell's sexual orientation. One editor had given in that discussion a whole list of redlinks that xe had opined were not suitable articles. The next day, whilst the discussion was still running, one of the discussion participants recoloured that redlink. Xe stated that xe didn't do it to make a point. Uncle G (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as just a gigantic BLP nightmare. I don't know that it necessarily qualifies as an attack redirect, but I doubt I'd protest if it were speedily deleted as one. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Scott barrack → Scott Barrack[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete G8 Tavix (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to speedy-deleted article created by a page-move before the article met its fate. --Dynaflow babble 17:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • G8 and tagged as such. Next time you see that, just add a {{db-g8}} tag to the article. Tavix (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

ISO 3166-1:MX → Mexico[edit]

The result of the discussion was retargeted by User:147.70.242.54 after an apparent consensus to retarget. Since this is the only redirect that was actually nominated here for deletion discussion, I am limiting the close to this instance. The fact that there was no one advocating its deletion appears to me that similar retargeting of similar redirects would be unlikely to draw controversy. Editors are encouraged to be bold with the others. B.Wind (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. Having it redirect to Mexico doesn't help anyone searching random ISOs either. Tavix (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Better start somewhere, eh? I'll let this one be the predicent for the rest. Tavix (talk) 05:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that some of these pages, like ISO 3166-2:SE have article content and as such are not subject to RfD. Usrnme h8er (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ISO 3166-1:XX pages are redirects to the countries, the ISO 3166-2:XX pages are articles on the codes (there are also some ISO 3166-2:XX-YY redirects that redirect to the ISO 3166-2:XX articles). Only the -1 redirects have been discussed above; not the -2 articles. As the ISO 3166-1 pages only lists the ISO 3166-2:XX codes, I'm uncertain about the relationship between the -1 and -2 codes. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The idea that a redirect must be something that one searches on is faulty in general. I can however imagine someone coming across the term "ISO 3166-1:MX" and using WP to see what it means. It should redirect to where there is information that helps the reader, even if it is not complete. So let us not use this a precedent for the rest. --Bduke (Discussion) 10:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it faulty? We frown on disambiguation links and redirect links from other articles so what other purpose do they serve? In any case, at least, the redirect should be to ISO 3166-1, not to Mexico as it gives the context and meaning of the code. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you mean something different than I think you do, "We frown on disambiguation links and redirect links from other articles" is not correct. I do agree that if they're kept, a different target should be used (whether ISO 3166-1, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2, or ISO 3166-2:MX is better is probably debatable). -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Current President of the United States → Barack Obama[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to President of the United States. GlassCobra 13:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect that changes every 4/8 years. If someone wants to know the current president of the United States, this isn't the way they would find it. Tavix (talk) 02:48, 27 January 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_January_27&oldid=1142588041"