Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 6, 2010

Timeline of the War on Terrorism[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 close; article sent to AfD for deletion discussion (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one by the same name. This used to be an article. JokerXtreme (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be an article (for three years) until you prodded it 5 days ago and then another user redirected it. Here's what the article looked like:[1]. This is not just a straightforward redirect deletion. Fences&Windows 22:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I'll restore it and Afd it I guess. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done You can speed close this. --JokerXtreme (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Timeline of the war on terrorism[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 as target deleted at AfD. JohnCD (talk) 12:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weird redirect.What is even weirder is that the name is not unique. JokerXtreme (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Does this mean that if the Afd result is delete it should be turned back into a redirect as well? --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. If the AfD result is "delete," both should be deleted. It would make no sense to keep one and not the other. On the other hand if the AfD result is "redirect", then this should be kept and targeted to the same place as the redirect created as a result of the AfD. B.Wind (talk) 19:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable. --JokerXtreme (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with B.Wind, I think that the redirect should remain if the article is deleted because it is quite likely that people will search for this title. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They would be more likely to search for the capitalised version if the article is deleted. It makes no sense to keep one and delete the other.147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, given the usual capitalisation of Wikipedia articles I'd say that this was the more likely search target (but as stats.grok.se is case insensitive this can't be verified either way afaik). Also, the search is case insensitive except where we have pages with titles that differ only in capitalisation so the only reason we'd need to keep both capitalisations is for internal links, which shouldn't be pointing at this title with any capitalisation anyway. I don't have a strong preference as to which capitalisation we keep, but I do strongly believe we should keep at least one of them. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer to AfD. If the article is kept, so should the redirect. If the article is redirected, this nominated redirect should be retargeted to the same target. If the article is deleted, so should this redirect. There is no point in a "split decision" here. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that the AfD of the target has ended in "delete", speedy delete per my previous comments. The target and this redirect should meet the same fate; it doesn't make any sense for one to be deleted and not the other. B.Wind (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Timeline has a very specific meaning, while the article "War on Terror" has a broader sense. I think it's at least weird to redirect to that. Delete altogether and the few (if any) linkrots won't be a problem soon enough. --JokerXtreme (talk) 11:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Taakatism[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 15:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article about this "religion of Indian origin" was deleted at this AfD in January as probably a hoax, and certainly lacking any reliable source to show that it was any more than something made up. The same author has now posted this redirect with the edit summary "redirect until a proper article can be put together." I have done another search; the same text has been posted in Wikibin but there is still no sign of any reliable source. Wikipedia should not be supporting this, even to the extent of a redirect, until some evidence is produced at WP:DRV that independent references to satisfy WP:V and WP:N can be exhibited. Not mentioned in target. JohnCD (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The editor who created this has a long history of creating hoax articles and other hoax edits, and there is no evidence to suggest that this "religion" actually exists. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why not a redirect until I can get together an acceptable article? This seems like a perfect compromise. Claireislovely (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because even a redirect gives Wikipedia's backing to the idea that the subject exists, and so even for a redirect we do not compromise with the principle of verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." JohnCD (talk) 10:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The word "Taakatism" does not appear in any reliable sources (and very few unreliable ones), therefore it is an unlikely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shoop da Whoop[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:05, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target. Not likely to be, either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • See RfD discussion for Shoop da Woop. The fates of the two redirects should be tied: either both are to kept or both should go. Currently there is no stated opposition to the deletion of Shoop da Woop. B.Wind (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, obviously. Neither is mentioned in teh target. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kick My Ass (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 delete. JohnCD (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no incoming links, target is not a disambiguation page and there is nothing to disambiguate. R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There was formerly a disambig page. Sort of. It only had one link, to the current target, but it was listed twice (it's been done by two different artists). There is no disambiguation, so unless more related links are found, this seems an obvious delete, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; note that I redirected Kick My Ass to the artist as an unsourced stub. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:41, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary. –Grondemar 08:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --JokerXtreme (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per ^^^ JBsupreme (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

B Zhao[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 Delete - no evidence found of this being other than a hoax, as per comments here and on the AfD. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Apparent hoax subject. Article previously deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B Zhao Onorem♠Dil 04:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - a Google search of "B Zhao" "chess engine" yields exactly one Google hit. Guess where... B.Wind (talk) 06:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete B Zhao probably doesn't exist, and even if it does there is no point redirecting to Chess engine, as it isn't mentioned there. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Millet municipal election, 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 Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G8 by User:Graeme Bartlett. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 10:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the target has been deleted. 117Avenue (talk) 03:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. The target has not been deleted yet (the prod has expired; so it appears inevitable). When it does get deleted, the redirect will be subject to speedy deletion WP:CSD#G8 as a page dependent on one that no longer exists. B.Wind (talk) 04:44, 6 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_6&oldid=1141906673"