Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 30, 2009

215 (number)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pointless redirect to a article on different number that recently had a section deleted (per WP:SELFREF) that had mentions of other numbers that did not have Wikipedia articles (Full Disclosure Department: I was the one who removed the self-references). With the same rationale I also nominate

147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Ambulance Chasers[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; disparaging and unhelpful. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - while I could see this as a valid article redirect, keeping this as a category redirect is pointless as "ambulance chaser" is a derogatory term for lawyer. Since this is a category redirect, it should be deleted. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 23:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Reverse Convoy[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 Megatron, more suitable target for disambiguation. --Taelus (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of term in targets of the disambiguation page, thus unsure where to retarget this to. Any suggestions for what the actual target should be? Or should this simply be deleted as misleading? Taelus (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that, ironically the article which mentions it is not on the disambiguation page. I am unsure why but when I googled it I didn't really find anything relevant, perhaps I was using dodgy search settings. I will retarget to Megatron as it is a more suitable target, skips a double disambig that way, and I will add the article you mentioned to that disambiguation page. Thanks, will close this when done. --Taelus (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, updated the relevant disambiguation page to contain relevant links. Thanks for research again! --Taelus (talk) 11:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Escape from Grandma's House[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of term in target page, uncertain of relevance. Potentially misleading for readers? Taelus (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. A fictional game appearing in the episode "Bart Gets an F" [4]. Whether the fact that there is a connection merits its inclusion seems doubtful, especially since versions of the game appear in other episodes, according to the above source. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 11:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to The Simpsons, since it appears in multiple episodes. Unfortunately no mention of the game is made on the page, but Google has 18,400 results, which seams notable enough. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If Amory's excuse is valid, then I agree: Delete. — The Man in Question (in question) 19:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Super Slugfest[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this term in redirect target, unsure of its relevance. Potentially misleading for some readers? Taelus (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Google, I say Delete. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Intraocular lens[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to contain an invisible byte-order mark or other Unicode control character at the beginning (as confirmed by the URL). Completely random and implausible. Indeed, the creator appears to be unsure why the redirect is needed in the first place. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

V.F.D. Snails[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At no point are snails mentioned in A Series of Unfortunate Events. Ergo, at no point are snails mentioned in connection with V.F.D. At no point are any creatures which in some small way resemble snails mentioned. Redirect clearly created as a joke. Currently redirects to a page which, naturally, makes no mention of snails. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The page used to redirect to "Other V.F.D. Animals". It seems the redirect was created because of the last paragraph in this revision: [6] It was not "clearly created as a joke", but as the page no longer contains references to snails, the redirect no longer makes sense. Pacaman! (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. The paragraph in question must then have been the joke/vandalism. Discussion of Volatile Fungus Deportation is limited in the series, and does not reference snails. I meant no offense against you. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not helping Josh Parris 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The definition of america is rock and roll[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect. Not a phrase in use. No articles link here. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rock and roll.[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless typo. No reason for period. No articles linked here. No one would add a period in search. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rock Music Racism[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable search item. Originally redirect to another article (Racism in rock music) which now also redirects to Rock and roll. Pointless redirect. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 03:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both as misleading and incorrect. The target Rock and roll#Race is not about racism in rock and roll, it is about race in rock and roll—not the same thing. For what it's worth, Racism in rock music should probably be deleted for the same reasons. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not helping Josh Parris 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Every child is special[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 Dabify. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 20:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect, no mention of term within article. However, it seems to be subtext in the image of a publicity poster, however it seems odd to redirect it here because of its minor use in publicity. There are many other advertising campaigns that no doubt use this term, yet not in a notable way which will be covered at wikipedia. Thoughts? Taelus (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, unrelated Josh Parris 04:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The redirect has no relationship to the target as far as I can tell. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 04:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. So far I see three notable uses of the phrase that recur in a Google search: 1) "Every child is special" appears to be the English translation of the Hindi title of Taare Zameen Par; 2) "Every child is special" is a long-standing slogan used by Easter Seals (U.S.), most prominently in their current stamp campaign; 3) "Every Child Is Special" appears to be a monologue on an album by George Carlin, It's Bad for Ya. Of the three, the first dominates in Google hits. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it, I created the link because it was the title I saw on the box of the DVD. See for example: http://www.cinecynic.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/taare_zameen_par_poster.jpg Some people like me think that this is the official English translation and therefore they may use it to refer to the movie. Diego Torquemada (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - frequently used term in connection with this film - [7][8][9][10] etc. Looks useful and, in any case, mostly harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per points listed above on other uses, and the fact that a non-English title is obviously not the most common use of this common English language phrase. 70.29.209.121 (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify; too general for redirect, but still applicable. — The Man in Question (gesprec) · (forðung) 07:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hypercity[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 HyperCity --Taelus (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading/irrelevant redirect. "Hypercity" is not another name for Sky City 1000. "Hypercity" is not discussed in the article on Sky City 1000. The article from which I reached this redirect (Metropolitan area) stated that a hypercity was a city with a population of over 20,000,000. Someone the Person (talk) 01:19, 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_30&oldid=1136448569"