Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 8, 2010

Cute, Cuddly, and Horribly Wrong[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) 10:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. I watch HTF and have no idea where this would've come from. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete From the best I can tell, it appears cut from the description, "The Happy Tree Friends are cute, cuddly animals whose daily adventures always end up going horribly wrong." [1] However, the shortened phrase doesn't really appear anywhere on the net that I can see, so delete as unlikely. TheTito Discuss 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Unlikely search term. Although it is shortened from "The Happy Tree Friends are cute, cuddly animals whose daily adventures always end up going horribly wrong.", it does not appear on the internet. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at 18:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

UCHUG[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). Novaseminary (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. This had been an article that was proded, and seconded, but the prod was removed and the UCHUG article "merged" into the United Church of Canada article with this edit. There seems to be no debate that the UCHUG article as proded - here is the last version before the merge - did not meet WP standards. Because the material added to the United Church of Canada article was so tangential, though, it too was deleted after this talk page discussion. So now all that is left is UCHUG redirecting to United Church of Canada. I think this meets WP:RFD#DELETE #2, #6 (though not totally broken it redirects to a non-existent section), or to the extent it is not those, #7. This should also apply to the lowercase version at Uchug which was re-redirected by a bot when UCHUG was redirected. Novaseminary (talk) 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, redirects to a non-existent portion of the target article. The group wasn't/isn't notable enough for an article, and several editors don't believe it's notable enough for a paragraph in United Church of Canada - see Talk:United Church of Canada#UCHUG PKT(alk) 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore UCHUG, then take to AfD. This was a (prodded) standalone article a week ago. The fate of Uchug should be tied to that of UCHUG. B.Wind (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why is the page's status in the (recent) past dispositive, or even all that relevant? Any editor who thinks that this redirect is better as an article is more than welcome to change it from a redirect to an article right now. Somebody could even recreate the article after the redirect is deleted. In either of those cases, if the article meets the criteria for deletion, we would have to go to AfD. I'm guessing you don't think the redirect is better as an article, though. Restoring an article to a state that nobody thinks is better seems counterproductive. In fact, even the editor who removed the prod doesn't have an opinion as to whether the text taken from the article should remain in the article in which that editor put it (read PinkBull's comment at Talk:United_Church_of_Canada#UCHUG). Maybe this does have to go through another step in the name of process, but that would seem to waste everyone's time without protecting any demonstrable interest. There is a very good chance nobody ever recreates or undeletes this article/redirect, and deleting it through RfD won't inhibit them from doing so anyway. Why not wait to go through AfD until somebody does? Novaseminary (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially the removal of the redirect is the last step in the deletion of an article that existed a week ago. Per precedent, the more appropriate action is to restore the article for a deletion discussion. WP:CONLIMITED must be considered here. The above comment clearly indicates a lack of awareness of the importance of the Wikipedia community vis-á-vis deletion. Look at it this way: suppose someone disagrees with the inclusion that you made to an article to the point of that editor turns it into a redirect. Another editor then posts the redirect at WP:RfD. Which is the most appropriate action - continuing the RfD or having a discussion on the original article? Clearly a discussion on the original article is most appropriate. The same is true here.B.Wind (talk) 06:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it wouldn't be a quasi-permanent AfD-like deletion. It would be almost as if the prod had never been deleted (but with even more chance for any dissenting view to be heard). And I take issue with your comment regarding my "lack of awareness of the importance of the Wikipedia community vis-á-vis deletion." I think all of the discussion on talk pages, the prod, and this RfD indicate a huge respect for consensus (and for those who might disagree with deleting the article). Of all of the statements that deserve a "clearly," I would hope the last sentence would be one. All that said, I have restored UCHUG and AfDed it here. Novaseminary (talk) 14:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

2013 Formula One season[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just adding future seasons and linking it in thi manner is not neccessarily accurate. Two, three four years into the future? --Falcadore (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. --Francesco Betti Sorbelli (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I've also prodded the target as it is mostly speculation and coatrack (its "clean up" tag dates to 2006). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has since been deprodded with the comment "rm PROD - longstanding article - lots of editors - rated "mid" by WPF1 - send it to AfD if you want to delete it". Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Good idea - I think I will. B.Wind (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this is too far into the future to be worthwhile per WP:CBALL (for example, in 2007 no one expected the collapse of the Arena Football League in 2009). B.Wind (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Laser Collection[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) 09:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This phrase appears nowhere in the target article. Without a context, this redirect can be potentially confusing. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no context. Had there been more mention of Darth Vader's light saber collection, I would have recommended retargeting to an article about him. B.Wind (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

I accidentally the whole bottle[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) 09:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This phrase doesn't appear in the target article; in fact, it appears nowhere else in Wikipedia. This is a most unlikely search item on a number of levels. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cock mongler[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) 09:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This term doesn't appear in the target article; in fact, it appears nowhere else in Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

✑[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) 10:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone really going to type one of these things in? Especially since you need to type in something special just to get this thing? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a dingbat character redirecting to an article demonstrating a set of ASCII dingbat characters. This font set is widely available in computers, Microsoft Office, and the like. Granted, this redirect won't generate a lot of traffic, but in this case, it is doing exactly what it is designed to do: take the reader to an article describing what it is. B.Wind (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - What's wrong with it? Not a particularly likely term, but the chances are someone searching it is trying to find out what it is. The redirect explains exactly what it is, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 18:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete as per User:Tenpoundhammer. What is the likeliness of searching for that exact term? Wikipedia is not a search engine (WP:NOT). But it does no harm in itself. Declaring interest, not in this article but the general rule of mine that I decide, is that it sets a precedent that anything goes, cluttering the namespace not only on WP but on search engines, particularly Google, that push (or sem to) WP results towards the top. Even if I amwrong in this particiar or in general, I think it is not helpful for Wikipidoia (that's we editors) to be spewing out ridiculous search terms. And it hurts people who are searching for something else.

Si Trew (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. All unicode characters should either have an article or redirect to a suitable article in which that character or class of characters is covered. I also don't see how this harms people searching for something else - if that were the case then we shouldn't have redirects from characters like ʑ, β and ♣. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a fountain pen dingbat.❁ This could have been cut'n'pasted from another source, in which case a reader would like to know what it is.✌ It appears in the target page with the other little dingbats that Microsoft provides for its computers.❋ 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Speaking of precedent, there are many similar redirects listed, so be prepared to nominate the rest of them if consensus is to delete.--~TPW 21:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep – This is the symbol for a Dingbat, I know it is hard to type. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at 18:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Twilight Saga: Breaking Down[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 Breaking Dawn --Taelus (talk) 10:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect points to an article section that was removed. Also is not the correct name - though plausible typo. A little obfuscated, as it's not clear on whether it's the movie or the book. Probably should be removed. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 15:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Breaking Dawn. The title is a plausible search term, and Breaking Dawn is where the information about both the book and film currently is. If the film is made in the future and an article is written about it, this title can be retargeted to the film, left pointing to the book or to a dab page between them at editorial discretion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

International Coalition Against 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 Keep --Taelus (talk) 10:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, with nearly 11,000 ghits for the exact phrase (including Australian and US government websites) and 25-30 hits a month since December this is a very likely search phrase. Thryduulf (talk) 15:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but there should also be a distinction between this and the Coalition of the willing at the target as the two terms are extremely similar. B.Wind (talk) 18:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)k[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

War on Terrorism - Timeline[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 to delete. Arguments split over whether it is plausible to assume readers want a "timeline" redirect to point to an article which isn't a timeline, vs arguments that it is a plausible and used search term for the target. --Taelus (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Terror War[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) 10:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep as a likely search term. Used 30-35 times a month since December. Thryduulf (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Struggle Against Violent Extremism[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, or at least no consensus to delete, defaulting to keep. --Taelus (talk) 10:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep, the phrase does get used (9,100 ghits) and has received coverage. However it has only been used a handful of times (5-6 times a month since December). Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

War on Terrorisim[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 as plausible typo and search term. --Taelus (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep as a very likely search term, this is actually what the War on Terror should be called if the title were grammatically correct. Around 15 hits/month sine December. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep potential spelling mistake, with no countering argument on behalf of the nominator. harej 00:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Battle against 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 keep (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

American Policy towards terrorism after 9/11[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) 10:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Slogan: War on terror[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 --Taelus (talk) 11:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Slogan 'War on terror'[edit]

Delete. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete above two - "War on Terror" was never referred to as a slogan. It is far more likely to have someone enter "War on Terror" than entering "Slogan" before the phrase instead. B.Wind (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The dad from American Pie[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 a future RfD once more numbers on usage can be gathered --Taelus (talk) 11:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely it will ever been entered as a search term. Jevansen (talk) 10:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. 471 hits in February and 65 so far this month show that contrary to the nominators' belief this is an extremely likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Helpful. Was initially considering a delete !vote, but the high traffic is proof that it's being used, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The high hits is to be expected. This redirect has been discussed/laughed at on a few internet forums, which is how I found out about it. Take January for example, 241 hits but barely any until the 19th when suddenly 105 people look at the page. Jevansen (talk) 01:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now; revisit in three months - had the forum discussions not picked it up, this would be an easy "delete" as improbable as the song "American Pie" doesn't mention a father, and if the phrase is mentioned in Eugene Levy the search engine would find it to give the proper context. But the January and February numbers are distortions; let's see if the numbers remain high or if the novelty wears off. As a rule, I don't think keeping redirects of the form (family relative) in (motion picture, play, television series, book, or song title) is a good thing. B.Wind (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: nominated redirect was created 23 December 2009, the originator's only credited contribution to Wikipedia in the past 52 months. Assuming good faith, this appears to be a prank edit by someone other than the one who did the editing in 2005; the discussion in the forums occurred soon after the redirect's creation. B.Wind (talk) 21:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Tfd-tiny[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 pending TfD result. Consensus is that it is a useful redirect, however if the target is deleted at TfD then this can also be deleted via speedy deletion. --Taelus (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful, I think. JokerXtreme (talk) 00:18, 8 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_8&oldid=1140103544"