Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 18, 2010

User talk:10.10.1.1[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. ~ mazca talk 14:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason for this redirect. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. 10.10.1.1 appears to be the IP address of the IANA, but I can't see any reason why we would want the user talk page of this IP address to redirect to the article about the IANA. User:10.10.1.1 has no contributions, and there is no history on the user talk page other than the redirect (created April 9, 2009) and the RfD notice. –Grondemar 02:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if we want to inform users the IP is the IANA, we can do it with a box on the talk page rather than with a redirect, thus whatever way I look at this it seems to be an unsuitable cross-namespace redirect. --Taelus (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, I agree with Taelus's point. Is it even allowed to redirect talkpages? Buggie111 (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is acceptable to redirect talk pages in some circumstances (e.g. renamed users), but I don't know about in this specific case. Thryduulf (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I am amazed that this couldn't be speedied as a talk page of a user who not credited with contributing anything to the project. On the other hand, talk pages of IP's that have had no contributions credited to them for a certain period of time are deleted as "housekeeping" with regularity (CSD G6). B.Wind (talk) 21:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as a nonsense redirect, talk space should never redirect into article space. 65.94.252.177 (talk) 04:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Plinko (The Price is Right pricing game)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Archaic and extraordinarily long redirect that is more clearly targeted and associated to the main article's title. Highly unlikely that anything would ever be associated or confused with "Plinko", so unnecessary to have a redirect specifically stating a target for the pricing game. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This has been consistently getting around 180 hits/month since at least August last year suggesting that people are using it. Given the age of the redirect (2006) it is quite likely linked from one or more external sites. Avoiding link rot is generally a good thing, so I see no reason to delete this. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to today, the only articles that linked to this redirect were Pascal's triangle and Bagatelle, which have since been updated to link directly to Plinko. Nothing else useful or relevant now links to the redirect. The hits were likely coming from the Pascal's Triangle article. The likelihood that someone would search or link to "Plinko (The Price is Right pricing game)" instead of "Plinko" is very low, and Plinko is not likely to be confused with anything else that would warrant a disambig link that includes such a long string as "(The Price is Right pricing game)". Sottolacqua (talk) 19:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What about users using bookmarks, and inbound external links? It costs nothing to keep it, thus if it benefits even one user its a net positive. --Taelus (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - naming is consistent with that of other names/redirects for games presented in The Price Is Right; as stated at the top of WP:RfD, lack of incoming links is not a valid reason for deletion. In addition, pachinko is sometimes called "plinko"; variations of both predate the broadcast version in the United States and may have a link to bagatelle and early pinball games. B.Wind (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pl!nko[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. Regardless of whether it's ever actually typeset as an exclamation mark, it seems that the very fact we're having this argument means some people think it's an exclamation mark. Fairly substantial usage on the internet seems to suggest it would be a marginally useful search term ~ mazca talk 13:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Redirect is a novel and very obscure spelling (which even includes a punctuation mark) for target article, unlikely to even be useful. Sottolacqua (talk) 17:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, this is how "Plinko" is actually spelled on the game board on the TV show, so it is a vaguely plausible redirect. –Grondemar 02:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not how the game is spelled on the show. The I is clearly not an exclamation point [1]. Sottolacqua (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was actually thinking of this, sorry for not being clearer initially. –Grondemar 22:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The host of that picture seems to be disallowing external referers so clicking the link wont work (it leads to a "denial" image). However, I could see the image by copying and pasting the link directly (presumably as there is no referer?). Even zoomed to 250%, the "i" in that image doesn't look significantly like an exclamation mark to me. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I was amazed at how often "Pl!nko" turns up in web searches, but it is exclusively in forums and fansites. Because I can't find a use in a reliable source, I'm urging a deletion, but since it is widely used in the blogosphere, keeping it would not be a detriment to Wikipedia, either. B.Wind (talk) 21:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon further consideration, changing my recommendation to weak keep by the sheer number of occurrences on the Internet. While there is not much on the reliable source front, the fact that it appears to be used with some regularity tilts me slightly toward keeping the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 04:14, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided Inclusion of a redirect requires a much lower standard than inclusion of an article, and in many (but not all) cases evidence of use is sufficient. Stats.grok.se isn't loading for me at the moment, so I can't check how much traffic this title gets, but I too see the large number of uses in unreliable sources. I need to think more about this (and hopefully see the traffic stats) before I can say wheat my recommendation for this is though. 12:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Oxford United F.C. (Northern Ireland)[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 boldly stubified by User:Djln, the originator of the redirect (non admin close). No longer within the purview of RfD. B.Wind (talk) 02:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be a redirect. It should be a stub/article in its own right. The target article is about a completely different football club (Oxford United Stars), which plays in a different town and in a different league to the club in question (Oxford United). Mooretwin (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Then just overwrite the redirect with the new article, you don't need RfD's permission to do that. Particularly not for a such a recently created page. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did, and someone reverted and told me to come here. Mooretwin (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at the history, what you did was blank the page rather than start a new article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • stubify or delete. Thryduulf (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Montgomery (disambiguation)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't see to serve a purpose any more. There were a few links to it, which I've moved. J Clear (talk) 02:26, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it is appropriately targeted to a disambiguation page. B.Wind (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is an appropriate redirect per WP:DABNAME. –Grondemar 02:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to avoid breaking old inbound external links and bookmarks. --Taelus (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Algebra 2[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) 09:56, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not an appropriate redirect as "Algebra 2" is a high school class (contents would vary from region to region, let alone from country to country), which the target describes the mathematical field (pardon the pun) of algebra. Algebra 2 is such a tiny slice of elementary algebra that retargeting to this latter article is rather pointless. B.Wind (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not really a helpful redirect. Wikipedia can't claim to cover the information a course/class would require, thus we shouldnt redirect class titles to the topic they cover. No information in target article, thus potentially misleading for readers. --Taelus (talk) 09:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not that helpful as noted above, better to let the search engine handle it. –Grondemar 22:29, 19 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_March_18&oldid=1048682499"