Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 22[edit]

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

Paultard[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete as attack. delldot ∇. 19:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive, unencyclopedic nickname either for Ron Paul or for his supporters. NellieBly (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Opposite of b plus or minus the square root of b minus 4ac all over 2a[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete under criterion G7: author requests deletion. Since all comments so far have been in favour of deletion, I'll assume that it's safe for me to close the discussion even though I initiated it. (Please let me know of any objections.) –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 00:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's imaginative, but not useful for linking or searching. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 22:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It's also incorrect, as "the square root of b minus 4ac" should read "the square root of b-squared minus 4ac." Just sayin'... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I strongly doubt anyone is going to plug "Opposite of b plus or minus the square root of b minus 4ac all over 2a" into the search engine. --NellieBly (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as extraordinarily unlikely search term. Collect (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the creator of this article two years ago and realizing an obvious error, I call a delete. Do we really have to discuss it further? Blindman shady 00:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Anal-oral contact/history1[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 05:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Redirect page unlikely to be useful. Seems to be the result of some very old trials. Did not use CSD as the page is not recent  Ronhjones  (Talk) 16:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It looks like was merged to another article[1], but it's unclear where it was merged to (assuming that it was merged, and not just redirected) and whether the history is still needed. It should probably be moved to the talk namespace as it isn't a suitable title for an article. snigbrook (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Is that a subpage which is a redirect in the mainspace sending itself back to its parent? I think I may have just gotten a headache. ...Not even the talk page? Normally (if something like this were at all "common" this might be looked at as some archive or old version, but those should be put in userspace, if at all, since they can be found via diff later anyway. Actually, don't we just never practice such silliness within one article anyway? I just can't think of one sole guideline to cite that would have saved myself some rambling time. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I declined the proposed deletion for the article, but only on procedural grounds, because redirects are ineligible for PROD. Unfortunately neither of the speedy deletion criteria for redirects would apply to this situation either. But I agree that this is a useless redirect, as an unnecessary subpage it should just be deleted. -- Atama頭 17:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Los Angeles Steelers[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete all. Ruslik_Zero 12:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, all implausible redirects NeilN talk ♦ contribs 15:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all, unclear why these have been created, and they can probably be speedily deleted (CSD R3) as implausible misnomers. snigbrook (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait The Vikings one likely refers to such as [2]. Also found mentions online for 49ers and Jaguars -- seems maybe they are less implausible than seems at first glance. Collect (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless it is appropriate to mention these names in the articles, they are still implausible. Most of them appear to be based on speculation, without evidence of serious proposals. snigbrook (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any mention of the possibility of the Vikings moving to another city should be covered in Minnesota Vikings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), not a redirect that reflects something that hasn't happened yet. The same goes for the other teams. Yeah, Zygi Wilf wants another stadium or a move to another city, but unless there are very concrete plans to move to Los Angeles, "Los Angeles Vikings" makes about as much sense as "Schenectady Vikings" or "Setauket Vikings". --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These redirects were created anticipating the NFL moving a franchise to LA. However, since (as said above), since Wikipedia does not speculate, these redirects should be deleted. In fact, having these redirects may cause a reader to incorrectly assume that a certain franchise is moving to LA, so even more reason to delete. Personally, only Minnesota or Jacksonville have a reasonable chance of actually having their franchises moved to LA Dabomb87 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_22&oldid=1143704187"