Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 7, 2010

Wikipedia:Snowball clause (historical)[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. NW (Talk) 19:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect left behind from controversial move which has been reverted. -- IRP ☎ 18:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stone Temple Pilots' sixth studio 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 Retarget to Stone Temple Pilots (album) --Taelus (talk) 10:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term and was replaced by the (since deleted) page "Untitled Stone Temple Pilots album". Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Stone Temple Pilots (album) article of the STP's sixth studio album scheduled for release in May 2010. While this proposed new target appears to be crystal balling, the article is actually well sourced with concrete details of release dates (of the album and the lead single) from reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 21:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rats with bushy tails[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. JohnCD (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone really going to type that in? That's like searching "river ferret" for otter or "woodchuck with its tail caught in a waffle iron" for beaver. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I was going to advocate deletion until I saw the results of the Google search of the phrase. While most of the hits were from Blogsville (hardly a home for reliable sources), I also saw a significant number of hits from reliable sources like the Daily and Sunday Express, Wilmington (Delaware) Star, The Villager, and so on. Since it has been widely used for decades, it's not as improbable a search item as one would tend to believe. B.Wind (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: At first, it may look like something to delete per the reason given, however, after investigating this further, I can see that this returns about 61,600 results on a Google search and thus a plausible search term, and not only that, but it has a significant amount of views for January and February, indicating that Wikipedia readers are regularly entering this into the search box, therefore, people indeed are searching with this term. -- IRP ☎ 18:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Though I ought to mention that I created the redirect, so, I'm probably a little biased in the matter! As mentioned, people do use the term, so I say keep. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does someone want to remove the redirect? I think enough time has passed and there seems to be consensus to do so; I'm not going to though in case it's thought I'm trying to preempt more discussion. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. The standard period of discussion is seven days, and as this was nominated on the 7th it'll be here until about the 15th unless the nomination is withdrawn or there is overwhelming consensus or other reason for a speedy keep. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Robbie Ray Cyrus[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 G6 by PeterSymonds, NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Result of hoax creation back in 2007 (was created by a now-indeffed sockpuppeteer misrepresentation of Billy Ray Cyrus article). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a distinct possibility - more than one actor has been confused with a part that he/she played. B.Wind (talk) 19:16, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect resulted from a now blocked user creating a bogus article under the title Robbie Ray Cyrus, which falsified some info from Billy Ray Cyrus' article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:02, 7 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_7&oldid=1141906668"