Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 28, 2010

Shoop da Woop[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on target page. Yes, I know 'shoop da woop' is an Internet meme, but unless we have something to say about it the redirect doesn't help anybody. And no, it's not mentioned on List of Internet phenomena either. (I would nominate Shoop da Whoop as well, but that page is fully protected; if this RFD ends in 'delete', that one should be deleted as well.) Robofish (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Prepubescent[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 Preadolescence by consensus (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better to redirect to Preadolescence CTJF83 chat 21:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nom - seems the most appropriate target here. Robofish (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom. Preadolescence discusses puberty and what immediately precedes it; Child makes only a brief mention of puberty in the lead. Cnilep (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Barack Obama substance abuse controversy[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 speedy deleted under Wikipedia:CSD#G7; non-admin close. TheTito Discuss 04:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a valid and useful redirect for people interested in this subject, but it does merit discussion. Lulaq (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - disclosure did not create any real controversy; nor does the word "controversy" appear in the target article. Not even the Clinton campaign people refer to the revelation as a source of a controversy. Keeping this would magnify any temporary hubbub to the point of giving it undue weight (see Dreams from My Father#Admitted substance use and political effect). B.Wind (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about on the Republican side, specifically with the Romney campaign? [1] Lulaq (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there a reliable source (not a partisan blog) that indicates that the term was widely used and generated by reliable sources instead of dispensed by partisans in a presidential campaign? I notice that the proffered source does not include the word "controversy." B.Wind (talk) 03:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • You make a rational argument. I put a DB-author tag on. Thanks. Lulaq (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

✑[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  Relisted at today's RfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone really going to type one of these things in? Especially since you need to type in something special just to get this thing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a dingbat character redirecting to an article demonstrating a set of ASCII dingbat characters. This font set is widely available in computers, Microsoft Office, and the like. Granted, this redirect won't generate a lot of traffic, but in this case, it is doing exactly what it is designed to do: take the reader to an article describing what it is. B.Wind (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What's wrong with it? Not a particularly likely term, but the chances are someone searching it is trying to find out what it is. The redirect explains exactly what it is, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as per User:Tenpoundhammer. What is the likeliness of searching for that exact term? Wikipedia is not a search engine (WP:NOT). But it does no harm in itself. Declaring interest, not in this article but the general rule of mine that I decide, is that it sets a precedent that anything goes, cluttering the namespace not only on WP but on search engines, particularly Google, that push (or sem to) WP results towards the top. Even if I amwrong in this particiar or in general, I think it is not helpful for Wikipidoia (that's we editors) to be spewing out ridiculous search terms. And it hurts people who are searching for something else.

Si Trew (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. All unicode characters should either have an article or redirect to a suitable article in which that character or class of characters is covered. I also don't see how this harms people searching for something else - if that were the case then we shouldn't have redirects from characters like ʑ, β and ♣. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 2 March 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_28&oldid=1140228052"