Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 20, 2009

Underline?[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary? Not speedying it as it's been up for a while, but I can't see any possible circumstance when anyone will have a use for this.  – iridescent 16:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree, this is unnecessary. — Reinyday, 18:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete?. I detect ambivalence... :) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Book of Deuteronomy[edit]

The result of the discussion was RFD not applicable. This is a move request and is already listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switch around to follow standard. As per discussion. Arlen22 (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Book of Exodus[edit]

The result of the discussion was RFD not applicable. This is a move request and is already listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switch around to follow standard. As per discussion. Arlen22 (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as not all users will search for 'the' and this helps them to find the content they are looking for. PaulJones (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Book of Leviticus[edit]

The result of the discussion was RFD not applicable. This is a move request and is already listed at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switch around to follow standard. As per discussion. Arlen22 (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as not all users will use 'the' in their search term and this will help them find the content they are looking for. PaulJones (talk) 20:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:SPEED[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless, nearly unused redirect. WP:CSD and WP:SPEEDY are far more used. Ipatrol (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Inadequate reason for deletion. Your only argument could possibly be criteria number 7, however, I think calling this "obscure" is quite dubious. In fact per Reasons for not deleting 5, I have found the redirect quite useful on a number of occasions (which is why I created it in the first place.) Artichoker[talk] 14:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this doesn't seem likely to cause confusion, and we have at least one person saying that they find it useful, so I see no good reason to delete. Scog (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to remove the association between "speedy deletion" and "speed" or retarget to Wikipedia:Speedwriter. Speedy deletion does not actually refer to the time it takes to delete a page, but rather to the amount of process involved. Also, there are several pages other than the CSD page (see Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:Speed) to which the shortcut could refer. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You make a distinction, but tell me what the difference between "speed" and "speedy". Couldn't "speedy" also be construed as the time it takes to delete a page, as you did so unfairly with "speed"? Artichoker[talk] 23:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it could, which is why I support renaming the "speedy deletion" process to remove the word "speedy" (but that's a different issue altogether... if you'd like, I could point you to some prior discussions on the topic). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 08:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Big Asian Four[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Big Asian Four" is not a well-established term (Google, bing). Toyota Motor Corp is most likely one of the "Four", but how does it represent the big four automakers in Asia? --Krtek2125 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete because "The Big Asian Four" is not a synonym for Toyota. Soap Talk/Contributions 15:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obscure term that is not also mentioned in target article.--Lenticel (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

September 11 attacks[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete all except Pentagon bombing, World Trade Center/Plane crash, and September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack/External news sites.--Aervanath (talk) 14:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are 125 redirects to September 11 attacks. Of these, this assortment of 15 redirects are very much redundant - they are former sub-pages, unlikely search terms, inaccurate or otherwise in breach of WP:NPOV. What is more, nothing links to them any more. Ohconfucius (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all except Pentagon bombing, as I can see that one as a search term. Tavix |  Talk  15:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Pentagon bombing. Since various conspiracy theories claim that a bomb detonated inside the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, that one is a plausible search term. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep most, if not all. From what I can see, someone could search for most of these redirects, except for the ones that used to be pages, but both of the kinds I mentioned should be kept for the following reason: To quote Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion#When should we delete a redirect? "[I]f a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect. Note that there could exist (for example), links to the URL "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorneygate" anywhere on the internet. If so, then those links might not show up by checking for (clicking on) "WhatLinksHere" for "Attorneygate" -- since those links might "come from" somewhere outside Wikipedia." Note that these links could come from peoples bookmarks. Per wp:Redirect#Neutrality of redirects, neutral point of view does not apply to redirects. Clutter on the "what links here" is not a problem because it is trivial to click "Hide Redirects".--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The September 11th attacks are well known and I doubt so many redirects are needed for such a well known event. Most people would just put September 11 attacks as a search term. --MicroX (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Pentagon bombing and the redirs prefixed "Sept" without slash/sub-articling. And so long as the new improved search engine can churn up the appropriate article right at the top (and I can't imagine why it wouldn't, given at least "September 11" or "9/11"), delete 'em all (except Pentagon... for the conspiranuts). Franamax (talk) 05:42, 28 June 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_June_20&oldid=1138576782"