Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1
May 3 >

May 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 2, 2010

When You Gonna Pull 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 Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors are edit warring over whether this should be a redirect or not. A full discussion seems in order. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I am not sure if "several editors are edit warring" is accurate. I removed the re-direct, another editor replaced it, I put a note on the user's talkpage pointing out there was nothing about "When You Gonna Pull It" contained in the album article. That user reverted their own edit (I had pointed out I wouldn't revert their edit on the grounds I make mistakes too!). Unless there is another article the redirect should point to, there is no purpose to this redirect. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a better way of putting it would be that this redirect has a history of being disputed. You're right that it hasn't come close to WP:3RR. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the two editors had agreed that it pointed to a wrong place. I was reverted once and I discussed it, the other editor reverted their own edit. Even the creator of the article has blanked it once, what I can't understand why you didn't leave the speedy in place. The edit history clearly states why the redirect should not exist. Oh well, when it is appreciated it was a mistaken creation it will be delted, jsut we have all spent too much time on it --Richhoncho (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't leave the speedy in place because the no content criterion is generally understood to refer to pages that are created without content, not pages that have been blanked. It was blanked once before in 2008 as well, and the redirect was restored then. When there is that level of disagreement about a deletion, a discussion is warranted. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No harm done, it was the edit warring that jarred with me. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it was the name of a Britney Spears music video. The song was never part of the album discussed at the target, and the phrase appears nowhere else in articlespace. B.Wind (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Baikonur Cosmodrome Site 41[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. Consensus here that this redirect is either equally, or less, useful than just pointing someone to the search page. ~ mazca talk 22:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baikonur Cosmodrome include about 50 sites, the full list of Baikonur sites are in Template:Baikonur Cosmodrome launch sites, only 6 of them described by Wikipedia articles. Following the logic of the above redirection - for all the missing articles, we must install redirects to Baikonur article. 188.187.8.19 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep there's a "41/15" listed on the article. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The mention is passing at best, and really adds no understanding. If you're looking for "Baikonur Cosmodrome Site 41" you're probably going to be fine just picking up on Baikonur Cosmodrome. Besides, if an article is worthwhile, a redlink might encourage someone at some point. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Amory. Redlink is better, anyone searching will probably have the target suggested anyway, Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:14, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Uighur guest house, Pakistan[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 improperly implies all Uighur houses are terrorist safe houses. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional claims need exceptional sources but there are no sources at all that would justify to redirect Uighur guest house, Pakistan to Al-Qaeda safe house. IQinn (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Uyghur guest house, Jalalabad[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 improperly implies all Uighur houses are terrorist safe houses. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptional claims need exceptional sources but there are no sources at all that would justify to redirect Uyghur_guest_house,_Jalalabad to Al-Qaeda safe house. IQinn (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wazim (terror suspect)[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 WP:CSD#G7 at author request. JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From little value but problematic under WP:BLP and WP:TERRORIST IQinn (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- I created this redirect -- in 2005. It was useful -- in 2005. It is no longer useful. It has no incoming links from article space. To spare wasted effort, as the sole contributor of intellectual content, I applied a {{db-author}}. Geo Swan (talk) 01:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Uighur house[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 Deleted per WP:SNOW/original creator requested deletion. Title salted. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term, or even a real term for that matter (no more than "Chinese house" or "Spanish house" is). Google search indicates no uses other than the expected one (a house owned by Uyghurs). rʨanaɢ (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I see no reason for this redirect to exist. It's inconceivable that this would be used as a search term. I've found almost no mention of this as a term, other than its obvious meaning for a type of house that a "typical" Uyghur person might live in. Justin W Smith talk/stalk 02:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and possibly salt) delete per above; salt because it was originally created as a redirect insinuating connections to Al-Qaida and terrorism. I'm afraid that after deletion someone will try to pull the same stunt again. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I created this redirect, and spoke out for it in a recent discussion. However some of the participants in that disucssion offered convincing arguments. User:Future Perfect at Sunrise in particular suggested the instances where it had been used should have been piped links, and offered me a very thoughtful and convincing followup, which I found convincing. I am going to place a {{db-author}} on it, and thank everyone who offered their input. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had it restored since I am still for WP:SALT. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 02:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was the only person who spoke in favor of the redirect, and I am now honestly convinced that I was mistaken, I find your efforts surprising. Geo Swan (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Re-considering the continues extreme pushing of User Geo Swan to redirect this general Uighur related term to Al-Qaeda even after the community had already decided that this is ill advised i can fully understand the request for WP:SALT. I appreciate the good intention behind the Db-author but as the redirect has been changed to Uyghur people by another editor i think that Db-author does not apply anymore and i just removed the template. I suggest to have this RfD take place and to delete it according to this RfD possible per Speedy delete and possible WP:SALT unless somebody comes out in favor of this redirect. IQinn (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don;t believe the person who originally created the redirect was doing so out of malintent; it was a term that appeared in a news report about Al-Qaeda, with the i spelling, and the explanation was at that time given in the al-Qaeda article. But it is obsolete as a redirect now. I don't think salting is necessary because we might someday have a standalone article on this topic, presumably at Uyghur house, which is not salted right now. —Soap— 11:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • How would we ever have a stand-alone article on the topic? I and just about everyone above have already said there is no topic (other than houses Uyghurs live in...should we also have Mexican house, Russian house?). rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:51, 2 May 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_May_2&oldid=1139987665"