Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 22, 2010

Unattended baggage[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. — ξxplicit 00:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very useful link, it is not used anywhere. Either delete it altogether, or maybe a different redirect such as to airport security. Grsz 11 23:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing in the target, so confusing, and no ready retarget. Better as a red link. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unused.--Lenticel (talk) 01:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. Rehman 15:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ama language (Papua New Guinea)[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, G7" whew, that was long ;). Lenticel (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

0.9[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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible, incorrect search terms. Note that 0.9 ≠ 0.999... nor do any of the long line of nines listed above, which expands into infinity (0.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 is definitely not plausible), nor are they representative of "multiple decimal representations", which are better covered in Decimal. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all. First of all, these redirects have been around for several years, and secondly, they are quite plausible search terms for someone who's trying to find the 0.999... article. 0.(9), for example, is mentioned in the lead paragraph of 0.999... as another way to represent that number. Proof that 0.999... does not equal 1 is another quite obviously plausible search path for this article. We're supposed to be helping readers find our articles. 28bytes (talk) 07:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And as a procedural note, it appears none of these have an RfD template on them. 28bytes (talk) 07:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, 0.(9) was a mistake. But the others are still incorrect as, before, 0.9 ≠ 0.999... and 9 repeating is not the same as 0.999... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure you're following me. I'm not claiming that 0.99999 is equal to 0.999..., I'm claiming it's a plausible search term for someone wanting to find the 0.999... article. 28bytes (talk) 07:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh for goodness' sake! How long do you expect the reader to hold down the 9 key in order to find the magic combination that will get xem where xe wants to go? Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - Long-standing redirects with no policy based reason for deletion. These were not suitable for bulk nomination; several have been kept at previous RFDs, for example, and this has not been addressed. In addition to not being RFD tagged, editors with previous involvement have not been alerted. Any that are considered harmful, the only basis for deletion of long-standing redirects, can be individually relisted, with the specific ground that they are harmful, specified. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 0.9, .99, 0.9 equals 1, 0.99, 0.99 = 1, 0.99 equals 1, 0.999., 9 repeating and 0.9=1 – implausible redirects and just plain wrong. The larger numbers are more plausible but I wouldn't care if they were deleted too. By the way, some have been listed twice in the nomination. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wrong title redirecting to an article giving the right information is a good thing, and an entirely proper use for a redirect. Do you, like TeleComNasSprVen, expect the reader to know the exact mathematical description of what xe is looking for, and to hold down that 9 key? Wikipedia is here for readers that do not know things, after all. Uncle G (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

2147483648 (number)[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 Kept. If anyone wishes to re-target any of them, feel free. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreasonably difficult, highly implausible specific search terms. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:39, 22 November 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_November_22&oldid=1088282885"