Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 29[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted as G6/author agreed to deletion Cenarium (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama/Article probation[edit]

Also: Barack Obama/article probation/logs, Barack Obama/Article probation/Logs and Barack Obama/Article probation/Requests for enforcement
Those are unecessary cross-namespace redirects which show up in searches for probation, readers shouldn't be confronted to this kind of content. [[WP:]] redirects can be used to access the pages quickly. Cenarium (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they can be speedily deleted under G6 / general housekeeping. I forget exactly why I created them - I think they are products of a page move during an effort to figure out the best way to organize them. They are not in use: nothing of any substance links to them. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These are useful for people monitoring the appropriate actions on Barack Obama, at the expense of confusing any of our readers who is simply searching for "Barack Obama" or "Probation". Cross-namespace redirects like this are bad. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - straightforward as the page should be in Wikipedia space; this was created by error and am not sure why it hadn't been picked up on until now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsuitable cross-namespace redirects which will show up in searches. --Taelus (talk) 00:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

TheWillToPower[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient (yes, ancient!) page, from February 2001. It pains me to say this about an old CamelCase redirect, but really, this is not useful anymore. No-one is going to search for a title like this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete -- I'm guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised if all six of those visits were from random article, What links here, etc. Although there is no "blocking" flaw, the presence of junk like this just encourages more of it (the broken windows theory. Matchups 03:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    How is this redirect comparable to a broken window? No one sees it. And what "crime" or further troubles could it possibly lead to? And, after all that: the broken windows article makes it clear that "fixing broken windows" may or may not have correlated benefits for bigger problems - i.e., testing the theory has shown... not much. Josh Parris 11:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously someone saw it and posted it here. And it shows up on Allpages, What Links Here, etc. It could lead to people creating more non-useful redirects like WizardOfOz or BarackHusseinObama. Matchups 04:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a difference: we no longer use CamelCase linking, but we also try to maintain Wikipedia's history to deter link rot. (Thanks to Rossami for that lesson!) 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RFD#KEEP #4: You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect. Old CamelCase links and old subpage links should be left alone in case there are any existing links on external pages pointing to them. This is exactly on point here... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, has not caused harm for the last 8 years, not likely to do so in the future. "Useless" is not a reason to delete redirects. Redirects are cheap. — Kusma talk 07:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Faculty of Engineering[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination; originally prodded by Philtro (talk · contribs) but redirects are not eligible for prods. Concern was: "No need to redirect. There are many 'Faculty of Engineering' around the world. Else, place all the Faculties of Engineering here (it will serves as a list)." Tim Song (talk) 08:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt This is excessively vague, and many faculties of engineering have articles [1] ; this verges on advertising for this particular faculty. A list would not work, since there are ever so many of such faculties around the world, a category would serve for the container of articles that exist on Wikipedia, but the list would be misnamed, if not excessively broad in any case. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Engineering, or delete works too. Josh Parris 09:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per suggestion, or convert to disambig although it would likely be a very large and not very useful disambig, since people can just put the location into the search box and end up where they want to be. Retargetting to Engineering isn't very helpful as it is not directly related to the term. --Taelus (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Engineering college and semiprotect - while the target is imperfect (I have just added a {{globalize}} tag to it), a semiprotected redirect might just alleviate most problems with the current redirect. Unfortunately, there is no mention of faculty in the target, but in some arenas "faculty" and "college" are synonymous. The only other worthwhile option is to delete and salt, but a semiprotected redirect would be more constructive. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Engineering college" isn't a faculty of engineering, or even close, I don't think it's an appropriate target. For one thing, the definition listed already excludes universities IN ENGLAND, where the article "Engineering college" is about. Everything on the list is a high school, apparently. 76.66.202.219 (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the {{globalize}} tag. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hence it would still be wrong after "globalization" because in England, it would not refer to Faculties of Engineering, because it would be about highschools in England. 76.66.203.178 (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fredrick neechee[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly redirect from implausible typo. Name is pronounced "nee-chə", not "nee-chee". Not recent (2007), so does not qualify for R1. Seems to get hits; I can't imagine why. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick_neechee has been viewed 32 times in 200910, so I reckon keep it, clearly it is a plausible typo. Josh Parris 10:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we don't know if the viewers were looking for the article on Nietzsche. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, but it is a reasonable guess Josh Parris 13:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While in academic circles the name is often pronounced "nee-chə", most casual speakers of English say "nee-chee".[2] It's the Fredrick that bothers me. That's not even how the English cognate is usually spelled. Neechee seems like a decent redirect, though. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the phonetic pronunciation of the last name I can see as a plausible search item; the misspelling of the first name is similarly plausible... but to expect someone to search based on both? I think not - the combination (plus the irregular capitalisation) clearly lands in the "implausible search item" territory. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep since this is for searching and not linking, the miscapitalized second word is not a problem because the searchbox automagically matches upper and lower case forms. As for "Fredrick", that is also not a big problem, since "Fred*" has many different spellings, and it is quite conceivable that an English-speaker would not know a German form, but would thinkk it were an English form of the name. 76.66.202.219 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Al Bryant[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 13:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in the hope that an article on the comic writer will be created (as linked to from Bill Ward (comics)). Albert Bryant, Jr. has quite a few speculative redirects pointing at it, and two or three articles, so this redirect is a little greedy on the part of the current target article. Josh Parris 05:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fresno, CA Police Department[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 13:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect has no links and unlikely ever will. emerson7 01:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Avb[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retargeted to AVB by The Man in Question (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was bad practice when there is an existing disambiguation article for AVB, particularly since this target is not the most obvious meaning of the abbreviation. Michael Johas Teener (talk) 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold and retarget to AVB. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:47, 30 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_29&oldid=1138577011"