Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 18, 2009

The Biggest Loser: Second Chances[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New user has been creating dozens of stub articles about non-notable people. Many of them are competitors in a TV contest, others are minor cast members in TV shows. In each case the article tells us nothing or virtually nothing beyond the person's name and the TV show in question. Some of these have been speedy deleted, others are tagged for speedy delete and waiting, while others have been converted to redirects. User has now been blocked. There does not seem to be any good reason for the redirects to continue to exist: the people are so un-notable that they are not likely to be searched for. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all The only one which is questionable is Daniel, who appeared on two seasons. Even so, delete. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ed Swiderski[edit]

The result of the discussion was kept. No consensus to delete. Killiondude (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New user has been creating dozens of stub articles about non-notable people. Many of them are competitors in a TV contest, others are minor cast members in TV shows. In each case the article tells us nothing or virtually nothing beyond the person's name and the TV show in question. Some of these have been speedy deleted, others are tagged for speedy delete and waiting, while others have been converted to redirects. User has now been blocked. There does not seem to be any good reason for the redirects to continue to exist: the people are so un-notable that they are not likely to be searched for. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jake Pavelka[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep. No consensus to delete. Killiondude (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New user has been creating dozens of stub articles about non-notable people. Many of them are competitors in a TV contest, others are minor cast members in TV shows. In each case the article tells us nothing or virtually nothing beyond the person's name and the TV show in question. Some of these have been speedy deleted, others are tagged for speedy delete and waiting, while others have been converted to redirects. User has now been blocked. There does not seem to be any good reason for the redirects to continue to exist: the people are so un-notable that they are not likely to be searched for. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False. This new user created ONE stub article, on the premise of expansion (Jake Pavelka). Any other users who have interfered are obviously not myself, as I have (by evidence of this comment) not been banned. Humorously, the fact that JamesBWatson has indicated that multiple people (myself, the banned user and possibly others) are searching for Jake Pavelka inherently contradicts his claim that "they are not likely to be searched for." --Bachelor14news (talk) 18:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jennifer An[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 21:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New user has been creating dozens of stub articles about non-notable people. Many of them are competitors in a TV contest, others are minor cast members in TV shows. In each case the article tells us nothing or virtually nothing beyond the person's name and the TV show in question. Some of these have been speedy deleted, others are tagged for speedy delete and waiting, while others have been converted to redirects. User has now been blocked. There does not seem to be any good reason for the redirects to continue to exist: the people are so un-notable that they are not likely to be searched for. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Project Runway (season 6)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Gordana Gelhausen was turned into an article between the time of nomination here and closing of the thread. Feel free to take that one to AFD. Killiondude (talk) 06:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New user has been creating dozens of stub articles about non-notable people. Many of them are competitors in a TV contest, others are minor cast members in TV shows. In each case the article tells us nothing or virtually nothing beyond the person's name and the TV show in question. Some of these have been speedy deleted, others are tagged for speedy delete and waiting, while others have been converted to redirects. User has now been blocked. There does not seem to be any good reason for the redirects to continue to exist: the people are so un-notable that they are not likely to be searched for. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The City (MTV series)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New user has been creating dozens of stub articles about non-notable people. Many of them are competitors in a TV contest, others are minor cast members in TV shows. In each case the article tells us nothing or virtually nothing beyond the person's name and the TV show in question. Some of these have been speedy deleted, others are tagged for speedy delete and waiting, while others have been converted to redirects. User has now been blocked. There does not seem to be any good reason for the redirects to continue to exist: the people are so un-notable that they are not likely to be searched for. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Real World: Washington, D.C.[edit]

The result of the discussion was kept. No consensus to delete. Killiondude (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New user has been creating dozens of stub articles about non-notable people. Many of them are competitors in a TV contest, others are minor cast members in TV shows. In each case the article tells us nothing or virtually nothing beyond the person's name and the TV show in question. Some of these have been speedy deleted, others are tagged for speedy delete and waiting, while others have been converted to redirects. User has now been blocked. There does not seem to be any good reason for the redirects to continue to exist: the people are so un-notable that they are not likely to be searched for. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:47, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It appears to be the convention to redirect Real World contestants to the respective season pages. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 20:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Some "conventions" are bad ones, and per nom I don't see how this is helpful. Tavix |  Talk  01:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Inferior Alveolar Nerve Block[edit]

The result of the discussion was that removal isn't needed and that the requester (myself) has withdrawn the request. Captain n00dle T/C 22:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect from capitalisation doesn't need to exist because of the way wiki now handles capitalised searches... Captain n00dle T/C 17:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not every attempt to access the target is made via Wikipedia's internal search; in any case, this does no particular harm by existing. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the double redirect needs to be removed anyway: [1]
  • Keep and retarget to fix problems. We shouldn't delete redirects from capitalisations, as the search box is not the only method to get to pages. --Taelus (talk) 10:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator, Captain-n00dle, created this redirect, then realizing the capitalization error, moved it to the properly capitalized name the same minute. Assuming deletion is still desired, nom. should withdraw RfD and request a WP:CSD#G7 (author requests deletion). The "keep"s above are proper for RfD, but should not prejudice a G7 request. -- ToET 14:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the replies, as ToE correctly guessed I did create it and realised my mistake. I shall withdraw my request per the general consensus. I shall also add {{R from other capitalisation}} and correct the double redirect, thanks! Captain n00dle T/C 22:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Falls in Karnataka[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a mess here .... the falls is located in Tamil nadu & this redirect shows something tht does not exist ....... Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 07:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This link is leftover after the cleanup of a cut&paste copy (not move) and multiple moved by Monk415 (talk · contribs) early on 18 October. Although Monk415 appears to dispute the location, a visual check of the geography places Hogenakkal Falls in Tamil Nadu, not in Karnataka, so the redirect is misleading. (The coordinates need refinement though.) -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 15:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The name of the redirect doesn't seem to be in particular use, and it doesn't seem to be a list, which would be pointless with only one entry anyway. I can't see any real useful purpose served by this redirect. John Carter (talk) 16:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Important Buildings of the City of Brisbane, Queensland[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needless redirect. warrior4321 04:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was an article in 2005, so should be kept tp preserve the history. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's impossible to know where the content of the article formerly at this title wound up, but we need to preserve its history. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:01, 19 October 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_October_18&oldid=1144710360"