Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 29, 2010

Ben Nyaumbe[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 retarget to Python sebae#Danger to humans as a more appropriate target that mentions the subject. If someone wants the old version on Wikinews they are most welcome to it, the page history has been left intact.~ mazca talk 20:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is a result of this AfD discussion, where consensus was to merge the article to an appropriate location. The merge was never carried out (confirmed using the WikiBlame page history search tool), most likely because there is no appropriate merge target for what was essentially a very detailed news report (see the version of the article prior to redirection).

In effect, his is a misleading redirect (it takes readers to an article which does not, and probably should not, mention Nyaumbe) from the name of a private, mostly-unknown living person which also gives the impression of being a personal attack (that was my first thought before I checked the page history). Delete. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Python sebae#Danger to humans, where Nyaumbe is actually mentioned. Under no circumstances should this be kept as is; I thought it was an attack too until I figured it out.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki the old version to Wikinews if they still want it, otherwise delete. --NYKevin @022, i.e. 23:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The World Inside Video Collection – 2007[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary version of an album —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You left out this: The World Inside Video Collection - 2007. Do we really need 3 links, two of them redirects? 24.149.48.112 (talk)
  • Delete as improperly disambiguated. Had it been The World Inside Video Collection (2007) (with or without "The"), it would be (barely) a keeper, but an em dash makes the nominated phrase very unlikely to be used as a search item. The version with the en dash I would recommend deleting as a violation of WP:NAME and WP:DISAMBIGUATION, but I can also see one in a million people searching for it. B.Wind (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Xuxa Singlegraphy[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 with no prejudice against renomination in a couple of months. Non admin close. B.Wind (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable neologism —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete, "improbable neologism" has it exactly right. Interestingly, the article Xuxa Singlegraphy is the #1 Google result for singlegraphy.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • (edit conflict) Keep'. It might be an improbable neologism, but it was the title of the article from its creation in August 2007 until 64 seconds before the nomination. Per my other comments on this page, I see no reason to break incoming links, mirror sites, bookmarks, etc. Justin, please stop nominating these redirects so quickly after page moves from long-established titles. In the absence of other factors (e.g. BLP issues) I think we should be leaving the redirects in place for three-four weeks at the minimum so it can be established how much traffic they are still getting, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Watch it, Sucka![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 consensensus to delete, defaulting to keep (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 17:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar, but too improbable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article was at this title from its creation in February 2008 until approximately 46 seconds before this nomination. I've no object to it being renominated in a few months when we can see whether the title still gets any use, but I see no reason to break any incoming links, bookmarks, Wikipedia mirrors, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Unut Sevme (Candan Erçetin album)[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 --Taelus (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive disambiguation, and also inaccurate as target is a song, not an album. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per my reasoning above. The article was at this title from creation in 2007 until a whopping 68 seconds before this nomination. I've got no objection to a renomination in a few months when things have settled down, but I see no reason to break incomming links, mirrors, bookmarks, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 20:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redundancy in disambiguation is no reason to delete a redirect. While it is less likely to be searched than Unut Sevme (album), some editors would include the artist's name in the the parentheses, thus making it a plausible search term. In addition, deletion would encourage link rot as this was a former name of an article. B.Wind (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ropeadope Records[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 procedural close as the title is no longer a redirect it is outside RfD's jurisdiction. If anyone thinks there shouldn't be an article about Ropeadope Records then it can be nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. 20:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this article, pre-redirection, was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ropeadope and editorially redirected to Rope-a-dope, and then recreated here a couple months later. Redirection from this title is obviously inappropriate: it's not a plausible spelling of the target like the previous title was, and it's not and never will be mentioned at the target article. G4 was nonsensically declined. —Korath (Talk) 19:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this is not Ropeadope, the subject of the AfD. I do not see the connection between Ropeadope Records (the redirect and its current target rope-a-dope (Muhammad Ali's strategy for defeating George Foreman for his second world heavyweight boxing championship). The close of the AfD was incorrect, but it has nothing to do with the current redirect. Should there be abundant cite-able material to demonstrate that Ropeadope Records passes WP:CORP, I have no objection to the creation of an actual article here. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the AfD is a record label by the name of Ropeadope. The article was once located at Ropeadope, and was later recreated at Ropeadope Records. The re-created article may be restored by reverting the redirect of Ropeadope Records to rope-a-dope (see the page history for what I mean). Chubbles (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A look at the histories of both Ropeadope Records and Ropeadope reveals something interesting: the former was created in 2007 while the latter was created in 2009. It was the latter title that went to AfD, not the former. This is why the G4 was declined, and even though the latter title originally had material about the record company prior to the discussion, the issue is really the redirect that was not discussed in AfD. The fact remains that it is not a protected redirect, but it has nothing to do with the boxing term whatsoever; thus my "delete" recommendation. The only other explanation for this history is the possibility of a prior histmerge, but I doubt that. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is all getting rather lawyerly, and so I will be WP:BOLD and restore the article. Chubbles (talk) 20:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Historical pages[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 rebuild. For now I'm going to retarget it to Category:Inactive project pages as the best-available current target, but the suggestion below to rebuild the page seems to be the ultimate solution. If someone has the inclination to do so, please do. ~ mazca talk 20:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I wouldn't mind having a directory of historical pages, this is not it: the anchor section of the target is long gone, and there seems no reason to keep the redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Category:Inactive project pages as that appears to be the closest thing to an index of such pages we have. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuild per 76.66.192.73 below, that seems like a very sensible thing to do. Thryduulf (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom or retarget to Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Demotion, which contains a small amount of relevant content. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: at the time this redirect was created, it pointed to an anchor in the target at the start of the passage, "A historical page is any proposal for which consensus is unclear, where discussion has died out for whatever reason. Historical pages also include any process no longer in use, or any non-recent log of any process. Historical pages can be revived by advertising them." We still have Category:Wikipedia archives as linked to in that passage, and it might be a better target for this redirect.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rebuild with the passage as contents, and a bunch of projectspace pages including the category, as destinations, on a list, for what could be construed as "historical" 76.66.192.73 (talk) 05:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is closer to my impression as I was checking things out: a list of pages/projects/proposals, etc., that are now labeled as "historical". Does it have to list every piece of minutiae that has since been abandoned? Of course not, but as Wikipedia starts its second decade it has a choice between protecting/preserving/enshrining its history and abandoning it. The aforementioned category can be linked in a "see also" section, too. The downside of this option is that should it be implemented, there will be a temptation to abuse it as an option in deletion discussions. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Latter Day Church of Christ the Lamb[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As has been discussed in Talk:Latter Day Church of Christ the Lamb the existence of this groups in highly questionable. No Verifiable sources can be found, only a 10 day old Yahoo! Group. Additionally this redirect may fall under WP:RFD#DELETE numbers 2, 6 and 7. #2 as someone may have simply and accidentally referred to Church of the Lamb of God as Latter Day at some time. #6 as the redirect, in a way, is “Broken” since no where is this group named in the redirected article and the "Other" subcategory doesn’t exist anymore. #7 as "Latter Day" may be considered an obscure naming.

Delete. No phone number or listing for any business (in Indiana - the state it is claimed to be in) with "Christ the Lamb" in its title. --Trödel 18:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a Google search with the title in quotations turns up only Wikihits (including mirrors and sites quoting Wikipedia) and discussion groups. B.Wind (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

WarrenKrisWoodhouse[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - these were apparently created by one editor using two accounts. Originally most were designed as multiple redirects, mainly to each other. Either this is a big exercise in WP:POINT or someone simply going out of control here. There is no viable reason for keeping any of these whatsoever. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all: no apparent reason whatsoever for these redirects, though I'd guess they're the result of self-promotion.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unnecessary redirects. – allen四names 14:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete all - Codf1977 (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WarrenWoodhouse[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of any relevance in target article, appears to be part of a suite of COI redirects created by User:798interactive and User:Warrenwoodhouse. PamD (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. From my googling, Warren Woodhouse seems to have some vague relationship to Paradigm Pictures, but not enough to support a redirect and certainly not from WarrenWoodhouse without a space.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the mass nomination above. We appear to have two accounts with the same editor, created two months apart. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per 147.70.242.54. – allen四names 01:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Houton Pride Parade[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 per WP:CSD#R3 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My fat stubby fingers. Hourick (talk) 08:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference pages you create in error are eligable for speedy deleteion under criterion G7. Just tag the page with {{db-self}}. Thryduulf (talk) 09:25, 29 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_29&oldid=1148047775"