Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 1, 2010

Exhange-traded product[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 as G7. NAC. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 21:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely misspelling, just an out-and-out typo. We can't predict all of those. Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's just a typo. Created by mistake if I recall. Forgot to speedy it. Yworo (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK; tagged as G7. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Malmanteau[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. — ξxplicit 05:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Originally created to evade consensus to keep Malamanteau as a redirect. Unlikely search term. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Penguin Point![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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term; restaurant never had an exclamation point in its name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - long-standing redirect. Established redirects are not deleted simply as 'unlikely search terms' because this is likely to break links in external sites. We only delete such redirects if they are doing harm and this is entirely harmless; deletion would have no benefit so leave it be. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful or helpful, seeing as the exclamation mark has never been used in any other context when referring to the subject. Bedirects do not establish themselves as such; they are placed there, and left if and until someone decides to delete them, sometimes years later. Given the low statistics on this redirect, an assertion of "establishment" cannot be justified. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - 'established' refers to the length of time it has been in existence not to its usage. The longer a redirect has been around the more likely the mirrors will have picked up on it. Since the continuing existence of this one does no harm, there are no policy-compliant grounds for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a meaningless typo/goof. Just because we should have noticed this a long time ago doesn't mean that we should keep it. WP:NOHARM is not a reasonable keep nor delete rationale, so we ignore that argument. A search for direct links to the "Penguin Point!" page yields no meaningful results. You can get your own report at wholinkstome.com ScienceApologist (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Wrong on all counts - WP:NOHARM is not applicable to redirects; harmless is a perfectly good argument to keep a redirect; whether a redirect has incoming links is irrelevant. Being long-standing is an indication of probable harm if it is deleted.Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:44, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being long-standing is an indication of probable harm if it is deleted. There is nothing in Wikipedia policies or guidelines to support this. You're on the losing side. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh; this is not a competition. This statement reflects established practice because deleting established redirects harms external sites. You would do better to base arguments on the guidelines for deleting redirects. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely zero external sites link to this redirect. We're not talking about a CamelCase issue here. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:12, 11 September 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_September_1&oldid=1074238953"