Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 9, 2012

Nontroversy[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 Retarget to Manufactured controversy. Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No apparent reason for this page to exist Hamfist (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other than that it's a neologism he coined which scores tens of thousands of Google hits you mean? Guy (Help!) 14:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a sufficiently non-notable neologism that it is not even mentioned in the target article. Google confirms that the word is in use (primarily as a pejorative and not in a way that actually matches the definition) but the use is not so overwhelming as to suggest that it's anything more than a neologism yet. I see no potential for an encyclopedia article at this title. A redirect to the neologism's creator would be less bad than a prohibited dicdef but I think readers would be better served in this case with a soft-redirect to Wiktionary using {{wi}}. Failing that, delete. Rossami (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It does not make sense, and may be confusing to the user, to redirect this word to Charlie Brooker when Brooker's coinage is not covered in the target article. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 18:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Netiher the redirect nor the target provide any reason to suggest that this redirect should exist. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Manufactured controversy. --Petri Krohn (talk) 06:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-target to Manufactured controversy. That page is a much more suitable target, and will direct people to where they actually want to go. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Manufactured controversy. -- Sandcherry (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Manufactured controversy: the readers are better served by being redirected to the words meaning then to its (currently absent) history. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:04, 11 March 2012 (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.

Bios Urns[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created using a proprietary product name. I moved the article the generic product description. This product name probably won't be a good redirect. Safiel (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the target page is kept, then the redirect from a non- or semi-notable product name to a more notable general topic is an allowed and accepted use of redirects. Preserving the history of the pagemove is also a positive, though the recency of the page creation makes that less relevant here. Of course if the target is deleted (which looks likely given the prod nomination), this redirect will disappear, too, as part of routine housekeeping. Rossami (talk) 17:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and if the Bios Urns becomes a more notable product, we can make an article then. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the reader would be more satisfied by being redirected to an article about the product genre then just seeing the invitation to create a page. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2012 (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.

Moo U[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 retarget. Two potential retargets were presented but I do not see a clear consensus for either. Wiktionary is the current target so I leave it there but that is an ordinary-editor choice and not a part of the closure of this debate. Rossami (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Moo U article as Moo U is derogatory term used to describe ag colleges and universities. The article was created by a UNC grad (perhaps as a joke) to include a redirect to NCSU and only NCSU. An alternative is to add redirects to all the other aggies (PSU, NDSU, Texas A&M, etc), but that would undoubtedly cause a ruckus as alumini generally take offense to their alma mater being slandered. Sandcherry (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but retarget to Agricultural education which is a neutral redirect and doesn't offend any particular school. I have changed the target on the page. Safiel (talk) 05:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Safiel. – hysteria18 (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wicktionary as Moo U is not a slang term for agricultural education. – Sandcherry (talk) 01:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wiktionary:Moo U: as the meaning of the term is argued upon even here, it is better to present the explanation of the term then the target a couple of editors will choose here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2012 (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/2012_March_9&oldid=1091632755"