Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 24[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 24, 2011

Battlestar Wiki[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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:11, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the External links section of another article, so this redirect is just acting as a link to the site. The main article was deleted at AfD Mtking (edits) 23:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the main page was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battlestar Wiki (3rd nomination). Now even the external link has gone from the target so we have nothing to show for this wiki. This is, perhaps, a pity because it gets a lot of hits but there we are! When we have nothing to say on a subject we should front up; hence delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even though I'd prefer the original article to be restored, there is no point in keeping the redirect.--DrWho42 (talk) 15:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a pity that such a popular and widely redirect should be deleted. But with that article gone, there's really nowhere correct to send people. —mako๛ 19:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above, with no prejudice for recreation if the consensus about inclusion of content about it here changes. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm in favor of the original article being restored per the above, although I'm sure that's a different discussion altogether.--DrWho42 (talk) 17:30, 27 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.

MLP:FIS[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Typo. MLP:FIM is fine, but Friendship Is Sagic? I don't see it happening. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Acronyms are fine redirects as long as they're used. Typos, when plausible, are fine. Unused, implausible, typos of acronyms? Pretty uncompelling. —mako๛
  • Comment. This does get some use, and there are lots of hits on google, all for this context, so it isn't a typo. It seems to be based on this image and it thus stands for "My Little POOOny: Friendship is Subarashii". "Subarashii" is a Japanese word that means "marvelous, wonderful, splendid, magnificent". I'm guessing therefore that it's related to anime culture, indeed the only person I know personally who is a fan of MLP:FIM is also a big anime fan (this is obviously original research though). I'm labelling this as a comment as I'm torn between recommending keep or delete. On the one hand redirects are cheap, this is getting uses, the target is relevant and there is little chance of it getting in the way of other things. On the other hand however, there is nothing to explain this at the target and in searching for the meaning of this I've not stumbled across anything in the way of reliable sources that would verify anything that would be included, and perhaps most tellingly there doesn't appear to be any mention of this on the My Little Pony wiki. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an improbable search term. Zickel (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 22:38, 5 October 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.

Gerald Barnes[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Innocent victim of fraud by Gerald Barnbaum--a redirect in this case would be highly inappropriate and misleading. Blueboy96 22:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - redirects are simply search aids to assist readers find information in articles. Since this name is used in reliable sources here for example it is a plausible search term as shown by the small but steady number of hits. Since the target has something useful to say I am not seeing, at this time, a policy based reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - According to the article, Barnbaum legally changed his name to Gerald Barnes and then went by Gerald Barnes. Yes, he stole the identity of someone else with that name and the "real" Barnes certainly has claim to that name. But he doesn't have an article himself and is only notable through Barnbaum. For that matter, I would would argue to this keep this redirect either because (a) Gregory Barnes is an alias for Gregory Barnbaum or (b) because the actual Gregory Barnes is discussed in the article. —mako๛ 19:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a useful search aid. Zickel (talk) 20:59, 5 October 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.

Anti-bacterial[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 retargetted to Antibacterial - clearly a misspelling. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-bacterial should redirect to antibacterial, not antiseptic because "antiseptics are antimicrobial substances that are applied to living tissue/skin to reduce the possibility of infection, sepsis, or putrefaction" while "an antibacterial is a compound or substance that kills or slows down the growth of bacteria". I think the reasoning is self explanatory. Kat (talk) 15:42, 24 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.

Thank you, come again[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 both. Ruslik_Zero 11:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at all in target article, don't think this is an appropriate redirect. Should really be an article of it's own (like Have a nice day), this could confuse readers when they are redirected to a Simpsons character. The phrase is widely used in the real world as well. Acather96 (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It exists because it's the character's catchphrase, so it makes some minimal amount of sense. I'm not sure this is a common enough phrase to justify its own independent entry (even as an idiom in Wiktionary). Dcoetzee 08:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: too generic, although it should be mentioned in the target article. Thank you come again also points to the same article and should also be deleted (although I do not know what is the correct procedure for adding it to this discussion as a second delete candidate). Kat (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have extended the nomination for you since I agree that the fate of both are inextricably linked. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a reference to the target. This catchphrase has reasonable usage but most stem from Apu. I have carried out some detective work and have established that it was removed from the article by chance. This vandalism removed a whole section including the phrase in question. This edit removed the vandalism but did not restore the section which has stayed forever out. Now the phrase can easily be reliable sourced - see here. Structured like this I think that it will be a helpful redirect. I don't think that there is enough about other usages to make a separate article so WP:RED would not apply. I am adding a note to the target's talk page to invited input from editors there. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a core catchphrase of the character. For that matter, the catchphrase should be mentioned in the article. I've edited the target article to list the catch phrase. Hopefully editors there will add some of his other catchphrases. —mako๛ 19:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it is a useful search aid to find this character. He is best known by his catchphrase. Zickel (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - its his catchphrase. Simply south...... creating lakes for 5 years 22:37, 5 October 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.

C:DL[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. The alias for categories is usually "CAT:". John Vandenberg (chat) 04:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - Redirects for categories seem of limited value anyway. Non-standard redirects CNR's that are almost not used at all seem to offer a particularly poor case for inclusion. The potential for harm here seems negligible, but does the potential for good. —mako๛ 20:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a redirect that is not standard and not useful. Zickel (talk) 21:02, 5 October 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.

Duisburg-Meiderich (VRR)[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. Ruslik_Zero 11:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was used by the S-Rail-template for the VRR Stadtbahn, however I changed the Template:VRR stations, so that "Duisburg-Meiderich" will directly lead to Duisburg-Meiderich Süd railway station (as usual for railway stations), because that railway station is directly adjacent dto the Stadtbahn station. I cannot see any other use for this redirect, so it does not seem neccessary any more. Thomas5388 (talk) 02:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I understand that it is of limited value but it does get a little bit of traffic and it doesn't seem completely plausible as a search term. Redirects are cheap after all. Maybe I don't understand the situation but I fail to see the harm here. —mako๛ 20:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the search term is not mentioned in the target article and is not useful. Zickel (talk) 21:04, 5 October 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.

Idetic memory[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. Salvio Let's talk about it! 11:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Misspelling, we don't want the misspelled word to be suggested on the search bar. Carl Francis (talk) 02:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Used frequently, commons misspellings are specfically allowed per Wikipedia:Redirect#Reasons for not deleting point 2. Acather96 (talk) 06:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible phonetic spelling. There's nothing wrong with redirects from misspellings provided the misspelling is plausible and this one is clearly regularly used. Hut 8.5 10:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the silent 'E' leads to a plausible misspelling. I have added the {{R from misspelling}} template to the page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Perfectly plausible misspelling for somebody who has the heard the word and wants to know more. —mako๛ 20:07, 25 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_24&oldid=1136083415"