Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 22, 2009

Season 1: 2005-2006[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a useful redirect due to its ambiguous title. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Agreed, too ambiguous. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EVULA. The target could be any series that started in 2005, and there are probably more than one. Jafeluv (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Las Vegas, Vegas[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unlikely typo and, as far as I know, not a name ever used to describe the strip. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

3'-N-dimethyl-11-deoxy-3'-N-isopropyl-12-O-methyl-11-oxo-8,9-didehydroerythromycin[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way anyone will ever, ever reach this redirect in a search for the article it links to. King ♣ Talk 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The RfD will likely not matter if the AfD succeeds. But I agree, it's likely too obscure a reference (Google only turns up that one article, so it isn't a common, albeit complicated, name for it). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible search term. Tim Vickers (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This looks like a hoax; it doesn't even get any google hits, and if it did, I would still say delete. Cazort (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The AFD is closed, but who is going to use the full name as listed here for a redirect? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep, depending on whether someone can reliably source the claim that this is indeed the correct full name of the drug. If no one can or does (for this particular case, I don't think we can take the lack of Google results to be definitive), then delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 19:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A google search[1] for this 82-character chemical formula returns only wikipedia pages. --King ♣ Talk 19:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitive, no, but I feel that the COMPLETE lack of outside search results suggests that this title is likely A) nonsense, or B) merely incorrect (mistaken). The user who originally added it is now inactive, but ALL of his edits pertained to the company who created this drug. --King ♣ Talk 19:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:JJB[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect not in pseudo-namespace. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here @ 05:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per all the others that have come up, users do not need shortcuts for their userpsace. ViridaeTalk 07:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Viridae and the other related deletion discussions. Sarah 08:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "makes my sig shorter" isn't a valid reason in my opinion to have a redirect to userpage. Definitely strikes me as a "I'm going to create a vanity redirect just to spite you" sort of thing. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a redirect to a userpage. Tavix |  Talk  17:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - wanting your signature to fit a lipogram so your talk page posts are entirely devoid of the letter "e" is not a good reason to have a cross-namespace redirect... —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 22:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity redirect, apparently created to try to prove some sort of point judging by the original edit summary. Anomie⚔ 23:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems very inappropriate to use the WP namespace in particular, which is usually reserved for policies and guidelines. This is a bad example for those not familiar with WP:NOTWEBHOST. The argument used in the initial edit summary is weak; if it were policy to keep bad articles around until a better one is written, there would be no WP:AFD. --King ♣ Talk 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - have notified the user this affects [2] —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was already notified. ViridaeTalk 02:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • He was? Well, I guess that I didn't check all six of his talk pages... :/ —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 02:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It originally went to his actual talk page (novel concept that) and was moved elsewhere. ViridaeTalk 02:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete but we really need to be clear that WP:CROSS only applies to redirects in the article space pointing to non-article space. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems WP:WHATEVER is article space and user space is non-article space. No? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 06:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. "WP:" is the same as "Wikipedia:". (for example, WP:CSD is the same as Wikipedia:CSD) Hence, shortcuts are not prohibited cross-namespace redirects. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • If shortcuts are not prohibited cross-namespace redirects, why is everyone so up in arms to make sure they get deleted? Especially pseudo-namespace redirects? - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 07:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Because shortcuts to a users userspace are nothing short of ridiculous and completely unnecessary. ViridaeTalk
            • Shortcuts directly to an editor's userpage or user talk page are ridiculous, I agree, but that doesn't necessarily extend to subpages; I find WP:CRATSTATS to be quite helpful. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Just because something isn't specifically prohibited doesn't mean it's a good idea. Anomie⚔ 12:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note that "WP:" and "WT:" used to be in the article namespace, until software changes allowed them to be defined as aliases for "Wikipedia:" and "Wikipedia talk:". Other pseudo-namespaces, such as "CAT:", "P:", the perennially-proposed "U:", and so on still are in the article namespace. Anomie⚔ 12:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Prayer(Skill)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term; although alluded to in the main article, there are many games that have "prayer" as a skill and the no space before the disambiguator makes it improbable. Tavix |  Talk  03:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The "prayer" skill concept is too common among fantasy games to be directed at any one game. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unlikely redirect to present target and no viable alternative can be found.--Lenticel (talk) 05:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per EVula. Far too ambiguous for anything more broad than Runescapedia, if such an abomination exists. --King ♣ Talk 19:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Divine spirit shield[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term; not mentioned in main article Tavix |  Talk  03:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An unmentioned and obscure term.--Lenticel (talk) 05:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have no objection to deletion on the stated grounds, but the redirect was not tagged until recently. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Need to[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget to Need To (already retargeted, see diff). –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 06:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I need to Move Need To here. But I can't since redirect exists. "Need to" is better for capitalization standards then Need To. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 21:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Need To" (capitalized) is the name of the song; it's in the correct location. We could change the target of Need to, though; that doesn't require a deletion requestion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Need To. The naming convention says that the last word is always capitalized in song names (see the third paragraph), so no need to move the page. By the way, you can use {{db-move}} when a redirect is preventing a page move to get it speedily deleted. No need to take it to RfD. Jafeluv (talk) 10:57, 24 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_22&oldid=1079395836"