Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 24, 2010

Crazy Davey[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly a joke, possibly a slur of some kind, but either way, never heard such an implausible search for David Cameron, and the first ten pages of Google search bring nothing up. SE7Talk/Contribs 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. It's not unlikely that he's been called this as some point by someone, but if it hasn't been done notably. It's equally likely that anyone else called David (especially if they are popularly known as Davey) could have this monika applied to them, but until they do this is a clear delete. Thryduulf (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think I have heard anyone call him that, let alone any notable groups. Seemingly just an non-notable nickname. --Taelus (talk) 09:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

X-Men new article temp[edit]

The result of the discussion was deleted under WP:CSD#G6 (housekeeping). See last comment in the discussion below for the history of the title and full explanation of the deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redir makes no sense at all. David Pro (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a redirect left behind after a page-move that the user forgot to delete. Can't it be speedied under non-controversial housekeeping or whatever the category is called?   pablohablo. 19:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the history, the content that was here was moved to X-Men/temp on 17 April 2006. On 4 June 2006 this was copy and paste moved or merged to the main X-Men article and the title redirected there. Following discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 6#Munster (temp) the X-Men/temp redirect was deleted on 16 October 2009. It was then undeleted and moved to X men, with the redirect that had been at that title since 10 December 2004 being speedily deleted (WP:CSD#G6] housekeeping) to make way. Given all this it is clear that X-Men new article temp was, as the name suggests, the temporary location rewrite of the article back in 2006, and following the series of moves the history is now at X men, a very useful redirect. I am therefore deleting this under WP:CSD#G6 as a routine "housekeeping" deletion following a page move. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kirk Brent[edit]

The result of the discussion was No consensus for deletion ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term isn't mentioned in the target article. David Pro (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't think one of Superman's well-known aliases is too implausible a search term. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Yankees suck![edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete as unopposed nomination ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, "Yankees suck" (without the exclamation mark) already redirects to the same article. 2 says you, says two 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Making of The Passion of the Christ[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense. David Pro (talk) 16:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I refined the target to the "#Production" section of the target article. It makes perfect sense to me. "Making of X" linking to the "Development"/"Production" part of article X... Plausible search term, plausible to be used as an inbound external link, and there is relevant information of sorts in the article. --Taelus (talk) 19:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Making of 'The Passion of the Christ' is the title of a documentary film about the production of The Passion of the Christ. I would not recommend creating "Making of {Film}" redirects for every film, but in this case I believe that a redirect warranted. Keep as refined by Taelus –Black Falcon (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Obama obama[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pure nonsense. David Pro (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree. Kinda funny but totally useless. --Mistakefinder (talk) 11:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barack Obizzle[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) under criterion R3. –Black Falcon (talk) 02:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other nonsense redir. David Pro (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 16:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barack Sotero[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) under criterion R3. –Black Falcon (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redir. David Pro (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 16:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brock Obama[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redir. David Pro (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Barack could be misheard as "Brock", especially by those for whom English is not a first language. 2 says you, says two 18:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The redirect was viewed 629 times from July through December 2009 (~105 hits per month), so it is being used. For context, see [1] and Brock (Pokémon). If there was any mention of Obama in the fictional character article, I would suggest retargeting there, but there isn't. –Black Falcon (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Brock" is an English name, whilst Barack is not, it is likely that someone would assume that the President of the US would have an English name, as Brock is similar in sound to Barack, it is a likely misconception. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

⏊[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect. What the heck? SuaveArt (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, well-known and commonly used symbol for "perpendicular". No reason for deletion given. —Кузьма討論 09:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That symbol isn't even a keyboard character so no one would possibly type it in searching for "perpendicular". Include in the article, sure (thanks for explaining what it means), but as a redirect it's useless.--SuaveArt (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is possible to cut and paste the symbol from, say, a list of Unicode characters (or from within a mathematical text where it is used) if you want to find out what it means. I'm not saying that it's terribly useful, but it is on topic, and you have presented no evidence that it does any harm, so it should not be deleted. "I find it useless" is not a reason to delete a redirect. —Кузьма討論 10:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find redirects from unicode symbol codepoints very useful. As it's used in mathematical texts it's very likely that someone will want to look it up, so I doubt I'm alone in appreciating the usefulness of redirects of this nature. Prior to November it was getting typically less than 10 views a month, but it received 18 hits in November and 38 in December including 11 on the 17th. It has been viewed 25 times between the 1st and 22nd of this month as well, showing it is used. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Black Falcon's proposed refining of the target. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf's arguments. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Kusma, but consider targeting to Perpendicular#Perpendicular symbol. –Black Falcon (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine target per User:Black Falcon, as that is the location where the relevant information is specifically. --Taelus (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of fictional nerds[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect SuaveArt (talk) 09:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as misleading Josh Parris 09:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it makes it look like we have a list of fictional nerds but we don't. —Кузьма討論 10:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I think at the time I made that there were pages that linked to it, but there are none any more. Erwin Springer [talk] 03:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, misleading redirect. --Taelus (talk) 09:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sally brown eyes[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was created yesterday with the content, "Sally Brown Eyes is a character that is used in the Nickelodeon show, Brainsurge." I issued the PROD, "No legit Google results, not notable (if the character exists), nor useful as a redirect." On double-checking, "sally browneyes" gets one hit, appearing in one line of what may or may not be an official transcript of an episode of BrainSurge. This has now been made a redirect to BrainSurge, but I'm still of the view that it's not a likely one, especially with the space in "brown eyes."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I note that RFD doesn't get as much attention as other areas, so I thought I'd make a brief comment that personally I don't see any major issue with the redirection (in regards to policy or otherwise). Cheers, NJA (t/c) 19:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nickcruft. The show has low popularity and this is just a character used to illustrate examples within the game without any external use by the network at all. Nate • (chatter) 08:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no mention at all in target, making this a potentially confusing redirect. If there is no mention at all for this character, there is no reason to a redirect for it/her. As it is, the name is mentioned exactly one time in a transcript of a single televised game show... and it's not even the name of a contestant, apparently. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Almost American[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect makes little sense and is quite possibly ment as a joke or to be offensive. Philip Stevens (talk) 08:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no history, no internal links, no traffic, no mention on target page, plus there are plenty of alternative targets. Josh Parris 09:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Josh Parris. Not only are there many other possible targets, a lot of them are more likely than this one (e.g. 51st state. Political status of Puerto Rico, etc, etc), some quite possibly being pejorative. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, seems like a joke to me, and whilst there are many potential targets I just don't see how a disambiguation page would help any end users. --Taelus (talk) 09:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Retarget Puerto Rico has been referred to as 'almost american' by people I know. However, 51st state is also a legitimate redirect. If there is no concensus on where to redirect, a delete at this point is plausible. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not keep - A bit vague, and too broad a scope for this. Possibly a joke. Offensive, perhaps, but NPOV doesn't cover redirects. If it wasn't for the traffic (absence of), I'd suggest a retarget to 51st state, Lord Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Burlington Flats,[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term, no significant incoming links, and created by mistake (the article existed at the redirect title for no more than one minute). The pagemove history is preserved in the page history of the target article. (Redirect creator notified using Template:RFDNote) –Black Falcon (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kyle Dickson[edit]

The result of the discussion was deleted per WP:CSD#G3 "Vandalism" by user:JohnCD. Thryduulf (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No obvious connection between the redirect and the target. Redirects edit history of creation followed within minutes by a rapid series of changes by an anonymous IP is consistent with this redirect having been created as a prank/private joke. --Allen3 talk 00:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:MANDARINS[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see this redirect deleted because there is no connection between an essay about article ownership and the Chinese language or ancient Chinese bureaucrats. If this redirect is a joke, I find it rather offensive, as it would imply that the Chinese are snobby or arrogant Altamel (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you did not understand the redirect, you could have asked for an explanation on the talkpage. The term "mandarin" is used in British English, among other things, to mean a mid- or high-level participant in an organisation whose power and prestige outweighs the value of their contribution. An equivalent term is "blazer". The creation of the redirect had absolutely nothing to do with Chinese people.  Skomorokh  20:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there meanings other than the Chinese language, or Chinese imperial bureaucrats, any bureaucrat could be called a mandarin, and are. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 03:52, 25 January 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_January_24&oldid=1091465407"