Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 17, 2010

The people of lowa[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 no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting WP:TYPO: "lowa" (with a lowercase "L") should be "Iowa" (with an uppercase "I") -- I have already created a redirect page with the correct spelling and do not believe it is necessary to keep a redirect page to accommodate unusual typographical errors like this one. Cheers! -- Bgpaulus (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Comment - does not meet any of the grounds at WP:RFD#DELETE. It is not a question that it is not necessary to keep it, more that it is not necessary to delete it. It is harmless and there is no benefit from deletion. I note that the occasional person uses it, so let it be. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Retarget both redirects they redirect to Iowa#Demographics which doesn't make sense to me redirecting to List of people from Iowa makes more sense. CTJF83 chat 04:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of people from Iowa is, I agree a better solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose retarget I think a case could be made for deletion as an implausible typo (who's really going to type anything beginning with L - which it takes for this to show up in a search - if looking for Iowa?) even if there are some occasional hits.
    I definitely oppose the retarget. Someone looking for "people of Iowa" is, I'd think, after information about Iowans in general, not just notable Iowans. In fact, I think Iowan and Iowans should both be retargeted to Iowa or Iowa#Demographics.
    Redirects of this type for other states are apparently all over the place... Sideways713 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Less than 3[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 Converted to Disambiguation. Xfd's are here to improve or delete things. There are a lot of pages improved during XfD. See the David Heymann article and the Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard. We don't use them to argue alone and leave the wiki pages that it discuss to rot. Please don't quench boldness. Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to retarget this redirect to a different page, preferably the article on Inequalities. Right now it seems only tangentially related to the article it points to. More appropriate towards mathematicians than "tech-savvies". :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. This redirect gets a steady flow of hits so people are obviously seeking information. I don't think that someone putting in such a specific search would be looking for a page on inequalities. However, there are a couple of plausible targets so I have drafted a disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bridgeplayer, can you DAB it after (not before) consensus has been reached and the discussion closed? Thanks. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The essence of the discussion is whether or not this redirect should be retargeted to Inequalities. That is not affected by my suggested disamb which simply offers an alternative. If consensus is that the redirect should be retargeted, as you would like, then that will be the outcome. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that will be the outcome. But first consensus must be reached; the outcome cannot come before it, or any other cause. Look, let's discuss it here first, keep it as the redirect it once was, and if everything goes your way, we'll DAB it. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever; for the record, this is the suggested disamb that you have just undone:
Less than 3 may refer to:
  • Dabify and redirect Less Than Three to the dab page. (It does not redirect to the song, nor is the song's existence even mentioned at the target.) 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, User:76.66.193.119. Are you aware of the above discussion? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I responded to this conversation, didn't I? And what's wrong with putting up a sample dab page? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Less_than_3&action=historysubmit&diff=374087919&oldid=374087161 -- There are two possible targets, and the other redirect Less Than Three does not redirect to the song, nor does its target article indicate the song exists, so dabification seems to be the solution. In any case, the RfD is not closed, so what are you asking? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That you DAB it after the RfD is closed. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I left the redirect and the RfD template intact. The dab was below a horizontal rule, so could not be confused with the preceding content that was under discussion. As it is, it's a sample dab page, and this has been done several times before at RfD (sample dab appearing below existing redirect under RfD), so I don't see a problem with that. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          You should note the discussion #Desert Valley on July 22, where the page was dabified *during* discussion. It is not an inappropriate action to take. 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Duane Reasoner, Jr.[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 Keep for now. I suggest that the conflicting parties seek dispute resolution measures. Lenticel (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Non-notable individual redirected by editor who pulled a double redirect with Duane reasoner Atlantabravz (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close as keep - edit dispute - this RFD is a collateral from an edit dispute, between the nominator and creator (who I have notified), going on at Jihobbyist. The nominator, here, has just removed a big chunk of sourced content referring to this guy. If that text stays out then the target is inappropriate; however, if the text remains in then the redirect is fine. People do not need to be notable to get a redirect; simply that we have something worthwhile to say. Such redirects also have the benefit of reducing the chances of a page being written on a nn person. There is, though, nothing we can do here until the edit dispute has been resolved. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as keep - edit dispute Nominator is part of movement by other editors to remove all mention of a fellow who has been covered by many Jihad watch blogs as well as mainstream US press (ABC) and international UK press as the ONLY well known associate of Nidal Hassan who murdered 13 unarmed soldiers in the name of Jihad and defensive warfare of his religion. Any time an editor declares a person who has been mentioned by the international press as "non-notable" s/he is most probably trying to enforce a POV which so far has been partially successful in keeping this person from public scrutiny on WP, if not the world press and blogosphere. Reasoner was quoted as REFUSES TO CONDEMN the attack because it is against "soldiers sent to kills muslims", a position and wording IDENTICAL TO ANWAR AL-WLAKI AND REVOLUTION MUSLIM, and likely congruent with the views of Hasan himself, for whom there is no doubt what Nidals thoughts were about killing US soldiers. This person who is still at large, and is suspected to may have arranged Hasan to contact Revolution Muslim and then contact Awlaki who proclaimed it an Islamic duty to kill US soldiers. There are certainly more than a few editors on WP who have a taken a position on whether or not Fort Hood was a terrorist incident who do not want this information to be on WP for obvious reasons, and have been quite active in routinely nominating ANY article on suspected Islamic terrorists for deletion. Bachcell (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Duane reasoner[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. Lenticel (talk) 00:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Non-notable individual who is questionably quoted in the article. Has another redirect for Duane Reasoner, Jr. Atlantabravz (talk) 19:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it is a real bad idea to have two redirects for the same person going in different directions. In this case the target is too tangential to justify the redirect. If Duane Reasoner, Jr. is ultimately kept then a new redirect, at the correct capitalisation Duane Reasoner, and to the better target, can be created. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Better solution is to have one redirect to another, then turn the link into its own article has some editors say that articles about Fort Hood and Hasan aren't relevant enough to include in much depth in either article, although there is certainly enough content in RS to creat a stand-alone article considering his possible role in the Fort Hood shootings as the only well known physical associate of Hasan who shared political and religious views concerning shooting US soldiers in defence of Islam. Bachcell (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - merge what? This is a wrongly capitalised redirect that points in the wrong direction. If you consider that the guy meets WP:BIO then write an article on him under his correct name, Duane Reasoner, but this is not needed as a redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sin⁡α±sin⁡β=2sin⁡〖1/2 (α±β)〗 cos⁡〖1/2 (α∓β)〗[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 18:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Declined R3 nominee (too old). Beyond implausible, however. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I couldn't agree more. Besides the obvious unwieldiness of such redirects, there are many possible permutations of Unicode characters that could be used for each mathematical symbol in the formulae, and thus hundreds of possible redirects for each mathematical area. Keeping these redirects would open a messy can of worms. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both - no point in keeping these. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Highly implausible redirects/searchterms. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Joyce Giselle Ching[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 G8 as redirect to redlink. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article that the redirect leads to has been deleted. Bobby122 Contact Me (C) 05:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cheri Pilteo[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. — ξxplicit 02:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term or typo; slight connexion to article, but said connexion otherwise cannot be confirmed (WP:V) as frequently used redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - if there is a meaning to the redirect, or a connection with the target, it's lost on me! A Gsearch sheds no more light on the subject. Delete as confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bouchee[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 converted to disambiguation page. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term or typo; don't see any relation to article. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:17, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Variant anglicized spelling of bouchée "small pastry case filled with a savory mixture, served hot with cocktails or as an hors d'oeuvre" - Collins English Dictionary.  Chzz  ►  03:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to disambiguation page - I feel such a page coming on ... Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:31, 17 July 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_July_17&oldid=1136083537"