Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 16, 2009

Mackerelvision[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; found when fixing double-redirects via Macrovision to Rovi Corporation. At best this is "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" TJRC (talk) 21:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unlikely typo. Jafeluv (talk) 10:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Has appearance of joke/pun vandalism. Recent creation was sole contribution by editor. A google search show the pun being used a couple of times on slashdot, but not enough to suggest common usage. -- Thinking of England (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Damsaiel Denner and The Damsaiel Dinner[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete both. Ruslik_Zero 11:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typos for The Dismal Dinner. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 02:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. ~ mazca talk 17:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as improbably search term, almost nonsensical. Redirects are not a word association game. This is a new creation from the author of Meaning of the word "is" is and The definition of "is" is which are also under discussion. Drawn Some (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s category work, if it becomes unneeded then remove. -- Banjeboi 12:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the redirect's other uses are pretty limited, it's useful for its use in the category as a famous direct quote. Jafeluv (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

VCL (Vixen Controlled Library)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 11:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term; I've known about this site for years and have never heard it referred to as "Vixen controlled library". Furthermore, it is not mentioned anywhere in the article, nor should it be, as it has not received any mention in secondary sources at all. (Note: I have nothing at all against furries; I'm just trying to clean up a few stray redirects after some spam was removed from the target.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reason to use the name of an Internet-based source as a redirect to an article that merely serves as a reference to the article. The article is in no way about VCL. TJRC (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as with yiffifarm or whatever below, not every website deserves a page or even a mention without secondary sources (per WP:WEB), and we're not a linkfarm. Like WP:EL, including every possible redirect for a website that somehow relates to the page topic is an invitation for spam and is not what wikipedia is about. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Unbirthing[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete both. ~ mazca talk 17:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I had redirected the page to vorarephilia, as the "sources" on the unbirthing page indicated it was a sub-type of that paraphilia. However, the deletion discussions here and here indicate that it was deleted before (and with good reason) and suggest that previous pages may have had different meanings, definitions and discussions (i.e. unbirthing has a variety of different meanings within the various communities that use it. With no reliable sources discussing the topic that I could find, the redirect to vorarephilia is not helpful; after reaching the target article, no information is found about unbirthing. I've added a second redirect page (unbirth) for the same reasons). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for discussion? It's only a redirect because you made it one, innapropriately... "the redirect to vorarephilia is not helpful; after reaching the target article, no information is found about unbirthing". You did that, that wasn't the article's issue before you came along. The issue was lack of sources. Since the redirect is unhelpful, I was saying you should revert yourself and put the article to AfD. -- AvatarMN (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Regardless of the reasons for the redirects' creation, or whether the target article is RfDed, it's clear that these redirects are not helpful and each meets at least two reasons for deletion: "The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange."; and "the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name". TJRC (talk) 14:52, 24 July 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_July_16&oldid=1138576729"