Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 25, 2010

MPEG-5[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 delete. Thryduulf (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no mention of WPEG-5 on the target page, nor it is mentioned in any of the MPEG-4 articles. Full disclosure dept: originally prodded; I removed the tag as prods don't apply to redirects. B.Wind (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete From what I can pull from The Oracle, MPEG-5 has never existed and its concept has no closer connection to MPEG-3 than any other MPEG-X. Thus, redirecting to 3 makes no more sense than any other target. TheTito Discuss 22:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of App Store applications[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 Delete - consensus achieved here, at AfD, and via WP:CSD#G8. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion as the redirect is misleading -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as the redirect should be reversed (disambiguated to undisambiguated title), but only if target inventory/price list survives its deletion proposal. B.Wind (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - confusing - why does this lead to a list of science apps? Honestly, I doubt that most people that are searching for a list of App Store apps are looking for only the science ones... Of course, if the target page gets deleted, this should also go. PerthMod (talk) 11:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article being redirected to is nominated for deletion (by me) and seems to be heading for WP:SNOW. If it does get deleted, the redirect is eligible for G8 deletion anyway as a redirect to a deleted article. -- Atama頭 17:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since it's not a helpful redirect. —Roguelazer (talk) 19:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i propose that we get rid of the redirect link thingy, and keep the pages seperate99.36.14.116 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Windows Rot[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 delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally posted at WP:AFD by User:Meewam. Rationale was:

I propose a delete of redirect page Windows Rot. Target page does not describe/qualify Windows Rot and nothing links (WhatLinksHere) to Windows Rot. 1st AfD in January 2009 ended in a majority for delete (4 votes); 2 voted keep, but article need source; 2 voted redirect, yet the page was redirected which was against consensus. Meewam (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I am neutral. Jujutacular T · C 22:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification. A look at the previous discussion indicated to me that there was no consensus for deletion - half wanted deletion, half wanted either keeping with some modification or turning into a redirect. Closing admin made a call not to delete (since there was no such consensus) but to redirect (which was keeping the page with a modification). But AfD's are not elections: they're discussions, and the sheer numbers do not matter here - then or now. B.Wind (talk) 04:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The majority voted delete unless the article could be sourced, as it was regarded as original research. Instead of finding sources, the article was turned into a redirect, which was against consensus: delete the article unless it can be sourced. That aside, the redirect points to a page that has nothing on the subject in question. Meewam (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fifty per cent is not a majority. There was not consensus for deletion at the AfD. Nom has yet to proffer a policy- or guideline (WP:RFD#DELETE)-based justification for deletion here. He/she has presented arguments more appropriate for a deletion review, but not for this forum: this is a listing for a redirect, not an article. B.Wind (talk) 19:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crossing out inaccurate comment - while emphasis of nom's previous comment is DRV in nature, there is a sentence that is appropriate for this forum. B.Wind (talk) 19:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the AfD issue is irrelevant here: the target don't mention the term at all.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

SueTube[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 delete. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not recently created. Redirects are cheap. Gimmetrow 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I heard my friends throw the term around a lot. If one wants to know what "SueTube" is, they'll be directed to the exact issue—copyrights on and lawsuits against YouTube. - Gilgamesh (talk) 07:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wiitoob[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 Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not recently created. Redirects are cheap. Gimmetrow 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, cheap or not, a redirect needs to make sense... --Taelus (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism which is unlikely to be searched for. Horrendous! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Goo Tube[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 Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not recently created. Redirects are cheap. Gimmetrow 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete YouTube is not Google Video. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a related term to the target. --Taelus (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable neologism which is unlikely to be searched for. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fame beyond YouTube[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 Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not recently created. Redirects are cheap. Gimmetrow 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fame beyond youtube should not be a topic in the youtube article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned in target article, thus potentially misleading for users and those using external searches. --Taelus (talk) 10:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR which is unlikely to be searched for. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

As one youtube gatherings[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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, points to a now-deleted header. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not recently created. Redirects are cheap. Gimmetrow 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete senseless redirect, does it qualify for {{db-nonsense}} ? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Misleading. It wasn't recently created, but what does that have to do with anything? Nobody's pushing for WP:R3. Redirects may be cheap, but this one is misleading, as the target has no information on the redirected subject, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:RFD#HARMFUL (instructions on this page): The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are ... if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect. Also per WP:RFD#KEEP - avoid deleting redirects when 1) They have potentially useful page history, 4) You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect, 5) Someone finds them useful.
  • Delete as nonsense per 70.29.210.242, unsure what this could possibly have referred to, but there is no mention in the target article. --Taelus (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR term which is unlikely to be searched for. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not OR or senseless, since there is content on the topic at Cory_Williams#.22As_One.22. Perhaps a retarget. Gimmetrow 14:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Social impact of YouTube#YouTube gatherings - there's relevant content there so we should link to it.
  • Fry to a crisp - at least "YouTube gathering" come within earshot of plausibility as a search item, the additional "as one" takes it further away. Delete this one, and delete it well. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

As one youtube gathering[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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, points to a now-deleted header. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not recently created. Redirects are cheap. Gimmetrow 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tubelebrity[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 deleted by Thryduulf (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, not mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not recently created. Redirects are cheap. "Not mentioned in target" is not a sufficient argument on its own, since we have redirects from typos, most of which are not mentioned in the target article. Gimmetrow 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I disagree completely with the above argument. What does "not recently created" have to do with anything? This isn't an WP:R3 nomination, it's an RfD. "Not mentioned in target article" is used when a certain subject is implied to be covered in the target by the redirect, when it isn't. This is confusing, disappointing, and misleading. Typos do not imply something is in the article when it isn't; they just help people find the article they were searching for under it's correct spelling. In effect, typos are in the target article, just under a different (correct) spelling, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 11:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:RFD#HARMFUL (instructions on this page): The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are ... if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical versions of some other articles—such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect. Also per WP:RFD#KEEP - avoid deleting redirects when 1) They have potentially useful page history, 4) You risk breaking incoming or internal links by deleting the redirect, 5) Someone finds them useful. Gimmetrow 14:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a typo of another term which is not mentioned in the target article. Whilst redirects are indeed cheap, I strongly disagree with the notion of creating them from every possible search term imaginable, regardless of whether they would be beneficial navigational aids or not. --Taelus (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OR term which is unlikely to be searched for. Ugh! Ohconfucius ¡digame! 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of YouTube celebrities List of YouTube personalities (but note that the term does not appear there in that form). Cnilep (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Googletube[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 Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, not mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not recently created. Redirects are cheap. "Not mentioned in target" is not a sufficient argument on its own, since we have redirects from typos, most of which are not mentioned in the target article. Gimmetrow 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete YouTube is not Google Video. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gootube[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 Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, not mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not recently created. Redirects are cheap. "Not mentioned in target" is not a sufficient argument on its own, since we have redirects from typos, most of which are not mentioned in the target article. Gimmetrow 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete YouTube is not Google Video. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasoning for Goo Tube. --Taelus (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

GooTube[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 Delete. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, not mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not recently created. Redirects are cheap. "Not mentioned in target" is not a sufficient argument on its own, since we have redirects from typos, most of which are not mentioned in the target article. Gimmetrow 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete YouTube is not Google Video. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasoning for Goo Tube. --Taelus (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Writers Notes Magazine[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 withdrawn by nominator, redirect turned back into article and sent to AfD-- Hoary (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Previously an article (created in 2006 by User:Egress13) on an obscure periodical, until around this stage (10 Jan 2010) short, clear, inoffensive, but utterly unreferenced. Within six days User:DGG and I had sourced a few uninteresting facts about it from its own website, resulting in this version. None of the various claims for notability within the article could be sourced. As nothing notable about the magazine could be sourced and it seemed to be one part of a rather complex literary scheme run by a writer named Christopher Klim (created by User:Egress13), I suggested at Talk:Christopher Klim that its content, and that of Klim's Eric Hoffer Award (created by User:Egress13), should be merged into the Klim article. As you'll see there, DGG agreed, but said However, I think it advisable to leave in enough information so that a reader will get an accurate idea of the nature of the entire enterprise.

In this message thread you'll find irreverent, unciteable, but I suspect accurate material about Writers Notes and its award (now the "Eric Hoffer Award"). I have trouble finding anything else.

User:Egress13 removed the material about Writers Notes from the article on Klim on 24 February. The next day I reinserted it. Five hours later, User:Egress13 removed it again, with the edit comment Cleaning up facts: Writers Notes was not free, defunct for several years; the website does not offer paid consultations; the author has not been associated with it for several years.

The magazine (or ex-magazine)'s own website has been redone in the last ten days or so; now indeed the (humdrum) facts cited from it are no longer there.

If the author is no longer associated with the magazine/website, it strikes me as odd that the contact address for both (Writers Notes, Klim) is the same company at the same PO number. This magazine -- which has been known for its insightful interviews with literary lions such as William Styron (in his last interview), Tim O'Brien, and Mary Gordon, as well as contributions from noted authors Robert Gover, Thomas E. Kennedy, and others (as we were told earlier, though with no source) -- seems to have faded into oblivion. If this is so, then of course the material about it should remain deleted, and the redirect to it should as well. However, no CSD appears to cover the latter. Suggestions? Hoary (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • My first thought is that the best way forward might actually be to undo the merge, so the magazine has it's own article again, and then nominate the article at AfD as unreferenced and apparently unreferenceable. It seems that there was consensus at the source article for the merge, but not at the target article. As such I don't think the merge was appropriate and should be undone for that reason. It seems odd to me that a magazine that allegedly interviewed such notable people could have faded away completely, and it warrants more attention of the sort that an AfD can often bring (and as such is one of the reasons mergers will be folded into to an expanded articles for 'discussion'). I know this is an unusual recommendation, but I'm just not comfortable with what feels like the deletion of content without a the deletion of that content being discussed, even though I know that this was not the intention of the editors involved. So, to summarise, undo merge and send to AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thank you for the suggestion, Thryduulf. See Afd/Writers Notes Magazine. -- Hoary (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

A Metallurgical History of Ancient Sword Making[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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems to be a hoax or vandalism, as pointed out at Talk:Sword making. Wizard191 (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could you clarify what you are proposing here - deletion? retargetting? stubbification? If the latter two, then I you could just have been WP:BOLD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry about that, I think it should be deleted, as there isn't any good target for it to redirect to. Wizard191 (talk) 18:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: While a bit of looking shows the most tenuous of connections, it looks more like the creation of someone without enough to do. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

John lyons australian 10th pm[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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 25

An unnecessary page (I converted to a redirect) that actually is even wrong about its intended target. The 10th PM of Australia was a Joseph, not a John. Shadowjams (talk) 09:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cuntry[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 Retargetted, nominator withdrawn after retarget --Taelus (talk) 10:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure redirect created by vandal. Doniago (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Cuntry Boner, a more logical target than to country (the former a song, the latter a semi-common misspelling). The term was not used in Family Guy as implied, even though the character Quagmire is a sex addict. B.Wind (talk) 16:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Doniago (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retargeted per above. B.Wind (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2010 (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/2010_February_25&oldid=1140201180"