Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 29, 2009

Sinuciderea fecioarelor[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A new editor input an article in Romanian which turned out to be a plot summary of Jeffrey Eugenides' novel The Virgin Suicides, on which we already have an article. I redirected it, but on reflection this is a most unlikely search term on the English Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, harmless, avoid accidental recreation, and points people from Romanian Wikipedia who change the ro.wikipedia in the URL to en.wikipedia to the right article. Nobody loses if we have this redirect. Kusma (talk) 08:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Normal users of English Wikipedia will not enter this as any form of typo. If this exists on the ro.wikipedia, merely change where it points — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Notability (uglyness)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. There is no consensus to delete. Wikipedia redirects to user essays are rather common. The BLP concerns have already been addressed at the target and are not relevant to the redirects. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly silly and slightly misleading cross-namespace redirect. ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 17:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which itself is an essay and means nothing. My Wikipedia:Notability (uglyness)/WP:FUGLY was created as a companion to his Wikipedia:Notability (hotness)/WP:HOTTIE. You delete one, you've got to delete them all. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 03:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's an essay, yes, but it's common sense. You can't lump together anything and make some sort of conditional "you must" statement. We evaluate pages in the nom by their own merits. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that just simply doesn't apply in this case as they are essentially the same thing substituting one word for another: fugly for hottie. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 17:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. See my !vote below. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bleh, I have no opinion on this. My redirect has been put up for deletion before by the anti-fun squad, do with the information what you will. GlassCobra 04:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong don't care, both harmless and useless. Kusma (talk) 08:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, doesn't strike me as particularly original, funny or clever - but it's not like anyone's going to use that redirect for anything more useful! I don't see the harm in allowing joke redirects as long as they aren't likely to mislead; and I really can't think of anyone who'd go looking for an actual notability standard for ugly people. ~ mazca talk 09:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and ignore. Really we have more important things that are causing harm that should be deleted. And vandalism editors who need a dose of the anti-fun to curb the degrading of articles. -- Banjeboi 11:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible who cares? Hans Adler 17:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - While I can appreciate the satirical nature of both the "Hotties are always notable" and "Fuglies are not notable" essays, they are not equivalent. To be called a hottie is generally assumed to be complimentary, even if untrue. To be called ugly is generally assumed to be insulting, even if true. I'm not convinced that it reflects well on WP to have a shortcuts linking to an essay which names specific individuals as "ugly", "fugly", or, in the case of Will Ferrell, "fucking ugly, even when au natural". I understand that it is intended to be funny, but so is a good percentage of the vandalism that is added and removed every day. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ASE seems to have a desire to have redirects into his userspace. All of which have thus far been deleted by consensus. Plus the BLP concerns need to be redacted from the target page.→ ROUX ₪ 18:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As usual for Roux, the "rest of the story" is left out. These redirects have been around since February 2008 and have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the recent shortcuts I created for my user talk page. - ALLST✰R▼echo wuz here 18:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can it with the personal attacks. → ROUX ₪ 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these will never be popular enought o need s shortcut (unecessary shortcut/redirect) If it wouldn't have a place in the project space (Wikipedia:) then it shouldn't require a shortcut. (Ie in comparison to WPCRATSTATS which could quite easily be placed in the project space). ViridaeTalk 22:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep C'mon people, don't we have something better to do with our time than get upset about stuff like this? EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignore = +harmless –useless +humorous –we_are_not_amused. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Skittlebrau[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. Sending people to where it's not discussed is confusing. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "skittlebrau" may have been a gag used in the episode of The Simpsons that this points to; however, the article contains no information on anything called "skittlebrau", and it doesn't seem to have any relevance to the episode beyond being a throwaway gag. We don't need redirects for every gag used in every episode of everything, and having one for this gag seems arbitrary. Unscented (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking out the old history of the redirect shows that it was in fact from that episode. [1]. It however does not seem not imporant enough to even mention in the episode's article.--76.66.188.176 (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - if it's not mentioned in the article, no point redirecting to it. JohnCD (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is something that I have searched for in the past, and it now serves a purpose of discouraging a separate article for the subject (which, being Simpson cruft, is likely to happen). Harmless.--Remurmur (talk) 03:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a definite potential search term; and simply redirecting to the episode is useful information - it tells you what episode that half-remembered joke came from. I also agree that having a redirect acts to prevent people creating doomed articles based on a throwaway reference. ~ mazca talk 09:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we don't need redirects for every single made up word gag from every single Simpsons episode ever. HIghly unlikely search term which is not mentioned in the target article (nor should it be, since it's trivia). "Keep it because otherwise someone will write a crufty article about it" is not a valid reason for keeping and if the idea that someone might write such an article is really that threatening then the word can be salted. It doesn't appear anywhere else on Wikipedia so it's not like someone's going to stumble across any redlinks for it. Otto4711 (talk) 20:36, 30 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_29&oldid=1144723875"