Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 15, 2009

Hooverville (song)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be deleted, as there is no song called "Hooverville" mentioned in the article and nothing links to the redirect. —Snigbrook 23:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete though possibly is could be a mistaken name for the song 'We'd Like to Thank You Herbert Hoover' which is sung by the residents of Hooverville. PaulJones (talk) 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Meet the little fockers[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't even a common name. I fail to see how this re-direct is going to help anybody. It was previously a copy and paste of the Meet the Fockers article. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I came across it because Stiller is currently on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, where he talked about the potential sequel, where he said it might be called "Meet the Little Fockers", so I imagine some people might try typing that into the search box. It was indeed just a copy-paste (without formatting) of the Meet the Fockers Sequel section, so I turned it into a redirect. Dreaded Walrus t c 22:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was not aware of that, but WP:CRYSTALBALL. Can we really be sure ; or is it just speculation for now? Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well the way he worded it made it out to be a "possible title", so you're right that it's not set in stone (he also talked about a potential storyline for a sequel to Zoolander). But is there any harm in a redirect? If it gets recreated as a speculatory article (or indeed just another copy and paste of the sequel section) then it can always be turned back into a redirect. If we delete this then people will just be happening upon a nonexistent page. It does appear that people have been typing it in to the search box, even if it's only a couple. Dreaded Walrus t c 22:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete speculation like that is not enough basis for a redirect. DGG (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as the target gives this as the title of the proposed sequel and has a whole paragraph devoted to it. Whether the target is being overly speculative is a seperate issue, but while covered in the target this redirect should remain so that users can find the relevant content. PaulJones (talk) 18:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mentioned in one interview on one TV show? I'm sure people will be beating down the metaphorical doors searching for it. Otto4711 (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair some people have been searching for it, including before the interview (although it did peak on that night). It's not many, admittedly: just under 300 hits so far this month. Whether that's considered enough to have a redirect to the relevant section rather than a search results page, I don't know. My opinion is that as redirects are cheap, what harm does it do for those ~10 people a day who search the term to be turned towards what they're looking for rather than dumped onto a search page? As the section I linked says, "If someone could plausibly type in the redirect's name when searching for the target article, it's a good redirect". Dreaded Walrus t c 10:12, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:All your article are belong to us[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is this? I almost R3'd this, but just maybe someone can see a reason for this to exist. I certainly can't.  – iridescent 20:55, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah Delete then per Black Falcon.--Lenticel (talk) 03:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the April Fools' Day standard (in other words, April 1 has passed). The redirect was created for the purpose of inserting a joke into a policy page (diff). –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – This is useless, and misleading. Unneeded redirect. American Eagle (talk) 17:52, 23 May 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_May_15&oldid=1138576900"