Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 5, 2009

Viper (roller coaster SFGrAm)[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Closedmouth (talk) 06:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect with an implausible disambiguation qualifier. "SFGrAm" is not an abbreviation used for Six Flags Great America, so I don't see why this needs to stay. Tavix |  Talk  23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it appears that someone created his/her/its own abbreviation for the amusement park, thus making it an implausible search item (and Viper (roller coaster) is already taken). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Excavated[edit]

The result of the discussion was retarget. Closedmouth (talk) 06:49, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion because the word "excavated" is not likely to be useful to people trying to find an article on archaeological excavation. Article has a short edit history relating nearly only to deletion proposals. Failing consensus to delete, recommend retargeting to disambig page Excavation Eric talk 16:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Excavation - I've seen other verbs being linked to a description of the activity - see, for example, the disambig note at the top of Egged. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to disambig page as suggested. It's traffic stats would suggest it is either used in external links and/or as a search term. --Taelus (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kifflom[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Closedmouth (talk) 06:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. Redirects to a nonexistant section. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- Kifflom is described as the deity of the fictional Epsilon cult supposedly discussed by characters in the game, according to the article at the time of redirect creation. All mention of Kifflom and Epsilon had been removed from the article at the time of retargeting to the "Myths" section and remain absent in the current revision. The "Epsilon Program" is currently mentioned in 9 articles but none seem an appropriate target. I do not know if the material was removed as non-notable, or due to perceived offense to Scientology which it satires. The Epsilon Program official site discuss the twelve tenants of Kifflom. -- ToET 04:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the information back to the targeted page--it seems appropriate there DGG ( talk ) 23:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Schlong Island[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep deleted. Closedmouth (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm throwing this over to you guys. Basically, my Schlong Island redirect to Long Island got deleted by someone whose motives I question. I contacted User:Woohookitty about it, and he suggested I come here. I'm going to cut and paste what I wrote on his talk page:

Hey. So encountered you at some point in the past, and as you are the only administrator I know, I decided to come to you with this. Last night, I edited the page Talk:Transportation in Vancouver to say that even though Vancouver has several light rail lines, its transportation system is still dominated by the automobile. This morning, I was informed on my talk page (User:Zweifel) that two pages I created had been deleted by one User:ConcernedVancouverite. I suspect that this user's motivations had less to do with the merits of those two pages, and more to do with retribution.

I don't care about Fiat Building, which was a joke I heard from several people in New York at the time of Chrysler's sale to Fiat. But Schlong Island is a well attested slang term/joking insult for Long Island around the New York metro area. I think Wikipedia would be richer for having it remain on the site.

Finally, about myself -- I think I am one of the good guys on here. Most of my edits have been copy-edits, and occasionally I have removed unwarranted distracting "citation needed" tags (though to be sure, I was once criticized for my lack of patience with those).

Okay, get in touch if you can. Zweifel (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me know. Zweifel (talk) 09:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I attempted to search for reliable source mentions of the expression and couldn't find any to establish notability. And I noticed that you had been asked about it before and your response in this diff was that your brother and you have been using the term for years and that it was not-often-used. That doesn't sound very notable. Additionally the term is offensive. As such I recommended deletion per WP:NEO. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, for what it's worth, there are about 4,000 Google hits, and the diff you refer to says that the redirect, rather than the term itself, would likely not be used very much, though upon reflection I can imagine a non-native English speaker reading one of those many MySpace pages and going and entering the term into Wikipedia. And I doubt that the silliest term for "penis" ever created (it resembles the German/Yiddish word for "snake") would likely cause much offense, except to someone looking to be offended. Or more accurately, by someone who was offended by something I wrote on Talk:Transportation in Vancouver after he edited the page a couple days ago, and went looking for some way to get back at me, namely by deleting two pages I created. Come on, man, this is a charade. Zweifel (talk) 18:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is slang that is part of a regional dialect. I contend that its Google hits, and its | mention in urban dictionary, constitute notability. And I repeat, what's it to you? How did you even find this page? I'm sorry if my comment on Talk:Transportation in Vancouver offended you, but I did my master's degree at UBC and I was sick of everyone saying how great public transportation was in Vancouver while I was standing there in the rain waiting for that damn B-line. Seriously, dude, this is a charade. Zweifel (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 4000 hits sounds like a lot. It must mean something to somebody. Jonathan.wellons (talk) 21:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment agreed. even i've heard of "schlong island" - admittedly as a joke...but it was from a chick from levittown, so i figure that there was some heft to that. and it's not really offensive...especially if it's just a re-direct page. mkushnir (talk) 6 October 2009
  • Comment Schlong Island? MORE LIKE DONG ISLAND exeunt (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That does not help in the discussion of a possible redirect under consideration. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. There is no consensus as to what "Shlong Island" is (based on Google searches and Yahoo! searches). I didn't find a single reliable source referring to it as a specific spot. The most "common" seems to be a variant of Long Island (and of Long Island iced tea), but the 4000 Google hits are scattered all over the place (the hits on Ask.com tend to be blog entries from New York; the same is true for the 143 hits on Yahoo, but all of them were blog entries there. All of Bing.com's entries of "Schlong Island" are blog entries from New York, too). A regionalism is OK to enter into Wikipedia only if it can be documented by a reliable source, and there has yet to be one in this case. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. 147.70.242.54, you may be having trouble because you seem to have searched for "Shlong Island" rather than "Schlong Island," according to the above. According to Redirects, nicknames are expected candidates for redirection when it is clear the nickname refers to a specific article. If you search for Schlong Island, as you say, all of the entries appear to be related to New York, specifically the Long Island area of New York. This would prove reliably that the nickname itself exists. Whether or not it's notable I can't speak to, but I do see many nicknames for areas of New York City that are as notable or less so: For Example, The Boogie-down, Hiphopabad, Ganono, Shaolin Land. This also applies to cities all over the world, see: The Cleve, Frisco Town, Big Potato, Cidade Maravilhosa, Round City. These redirects only add to the usefulness of Wikipedia and don't cause any harm, and I see no harm in keeping this one as well. Gregorus (talk) 14:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This cannot be left unchallenged; so I'll go down point by point. First, I checked both spellings of shlong/schlong (and note that most of the discussion has been about the latter, which I reported (if you doubt me, do the requesite searches with quotations and see what numbers come up). No less than the American Heritage Dictionary - a WP:Reliable source, you must admit - shows both spellings for the word along with the slang notation meaning penis. Second, not one of the hits in any of the searches comes from (by WP:Wikipedia policy a reliable source), and if it cannot be verified by an appearance and explanation in a reliable source, then by policy, it does not belong in Wikipedia. PERIOD. There is no gray area here. A few years ago, some pundits referred to Florida as America's wang - and bloggers had a field day - but (guess what?) it wasn't widely accepted because no reliable source reported it. The same is here with the "nominated" term (note the discussion that actually started it - it was based on a Canadian conversation!). Third, your argument along the lines of WP:ALLORNOTHING fails on a very simple premise - just because someone had the ambition to write an article about something, it is automatically assumed to be worthy of inclusion... FALSE! It is worthy of inclusion only if the application of the appropriate policies deem them to be so. By the way, there are at least three terms in your list that are actually supported by reliable sources (and thus should be kept) - their inclusion is virtually mandated by WP:V and WP:RS. Which ones aren't? Fourth, perusing WP:LOCAL is an eye-opening experience. Again, how many items on your list were covered by media away from the local communities? Chances are that the percentage of that is much greater than the zero that was Shlong Island/Schlong Island... and those that have not had such coverage should not be covered, either, until they get some. Oh, by the way, WP:NOHARM is not a valid argument in itself for either keeping or deleting redirects. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The cartilige family[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 08:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally unnecessary redirect. Doesn't fall under typo; because its not similar to Catridge Family ceranthor 01:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete - the closest I can get to this as a possible search item is Chondrichthyes, a class (not a family) of fish with skeletons made of cartilage... but that's a long stretch from the nominated redirect's name. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kitten killing[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Closedmouth (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted as I have found nothing other than a lone urbandictionary definition dictating that the term "kitten killing" is slang for masturbation. 24.184.200.190 (talk) 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This also claims that it means masturbation. But with the only sources being from non-verifiable sources, I'm inclined to say delete this. Netalarmtalk 00:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overly obscure and not discussed in target article (or optionally, retarget to Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten). -- ToET 02:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested above. I think that's the intended meaning. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 5 October 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_October_5&oldid=1142587958"