Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 2, 2011

Com.com[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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think com.com is very notable considering that there is little coverage of that. Accordingly, this is not a very useful redirect. Jasper Deng (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - mentioned in the target so neither confusing nor misleading. Gets some hits so useful. Harmless. Notability is not a criterion for a redirect. No valid grounds for deletion specified in the nomination. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

List of Nobel laureates that Wikipedia has decided are 'Jewish', but won't say why[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 as G10 by Orangemike. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The title is polemical and self-referential. Warden (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Category:Cancer[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 speedily closed as wrong forum, discussions about reorganising categories belong at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I'm going about this the right way; I don't often visit this page. This soft redirect to oncology has been in place since 2006, but there's (now) a great deal of content about cancer that is not related to the field of oncology, and could be grouped under the top-level Category:Cancer, which I believe should be a parent for Category:Oncology. Should I just go ahead and remove the redirect and populate the category accordingly, or do people disagree? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you're actually proposing here is a reorganising of Category:Oncology, rather than the simple deletion of a redirect. The forum for proposals about category organisation belong at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion rather than here.
My limited experience of CfD is that they will want a bit more information about what articles and/or sub-categories you propose moving in the nomination. As such I have not simply copied this discussion there, as a new nomination giving that information is more likely to be productive. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Frogodile[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 as G3 by Reaper Eternal. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. It is a hoax, there is no such thing as a Frogodile. I happen to know the creator of this page, and he thinks misinformation is funny, which is why he's done this. It was specifically created as a redirect rather than an article to make it harder to delete and less likely to be reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj5 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 2 September 2011

  • Speedy delete as G3 and tagged as such. Obvious, blatant hoax - this is a well known computer morpth - see here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_September_2&oldid=1039427793"