Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 6, 2012

What about the children?! Won't somebody please think of the children !?[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 and link from target to general topic. Tikiwont (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion as it is a quote that is being redirected to a character section of a page. This is unnecessary as the "catch phrase" can just be searched and found. It may also be needed to have a discussion about redirects like this one (if there are any others) and if they should/n't be used in the future. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 21:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a rather common meme and certainly not just a random phrase. Only valid reason for deletion would be to save the last tree, and they are not about to go extinct because of an electronic encyclopedia. μηδείς (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion is not about it being a being a "common meme" and "certainly not just a random phrase", nor did I state it should be deleted for not being those things. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 23:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep useful as a redirect, as I wanted to know what this was about, and by the redirect I found it. I would not have happened by way of searching for the text. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Children's interests (rhetoric), an article that properly discusses the logical fallacy. On the other hand, it's possible there are enough targets to justify disambiguation Ego White Tray (talk) 20:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given this is a Simpsons meme, what would make sense would be providing a link at the simpson's sub page mentioning Children's interests as a main page. SWimply retargetting it deprives readers of all knowledge of its source. Might as well redirect embiggen to magnification. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with that, I guess. And your comparison with embiggen is totally wrong, and embiggen doesn't mean magnify anyway, it means to make someone a better person. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:06, 8 November 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.

2010 Haiti earthquake conspiracy theories[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 to preserve the edit history. No prejudice against further discussion on how to lead readers better to the relevant information.Tikiwont (talk) 20:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: nothing about conspiracy theories is mentioned in the article. 69.111.189.155 (talk) 20:28, 6 November 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.

Zero Day (novel)[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 18:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Target article has no critical or educational commentary about this title. Basically no info. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moved here from tomorrow's page by Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, until someone writes an article, the author is the logical target. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reason to delete #10 "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject. In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself." Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:09, 20 November 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.

Phil Mooney[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. Tikiwont (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of redirect, inappropriate redirect of coach to former club. Kafuffle (talk) 08:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Make a stub, and failing that, redlink. Plenty of biographical information about him would have no place in the team's article, and he might coach another team in the future. Ego White Tray (talk) 20:40, 7 November 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.

Mohammed Amin (expert in Islamic Finance)[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 (proposal withdrawn). (Non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 10:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation -- Patchy1 01:26, 6 November 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.

Anil Film Director[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 (proposal withdrawn). (Non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 10:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation -- Patchy1 01:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as it's not doing any harm. Disambiguation is needed as there are multiple notable people called Anil Kumar. Thryduulf (talk) 15:12, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no rationale for deletion. WilyD 00:51, 7 November 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.

Anil (Malayalam film director)[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 (proposal withdrawn). (Non-admin closure) -- Patchy1 10:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary disambiguation -- Patchy1 01:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Disambiguation is necessary as there is another notable film director with this first name (Anil Sharma), and this is a perfectly plausible serach term. Deletion would bring no benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no rationale for deletion. WilyD 00:49, 7 November 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.

̂[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. Tikiwont (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible to find this page without typing in the direct URL. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is very well used with 400-500 hits a month. It can be linked externally and is findable by people navigating by URL (I frequently do this, and I'm far from alone) and also by people using the firefox URL bar search facility. Thryduulf (talk) 15:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I have noticed, this pops up for some reason when one types in an unusual search term, such as ||. As a result, it is likely getting a lot of hits from people who wanted a different page, not this one. StringTheory11 (t • c) 16:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't seem to select it to check out its unicode value... so I'm assuming that this is indeed the unicode character for circumflex. If so, I see no reason for it to not redirect to the article, as it is the circumflex -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that the character is the diacritic itself. Therefore, there is absolutely no way to type it into the search bar without another character. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:20, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is the sort of thing that we need to make Wikipedia complete. Even if you cannot type it, someone managed to type it in to create, so others could too. We also have ˆ and ＾ as well as the symbol under question that should also stay. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:59, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question This is the combining circumflex, right? Double sharp (talk) 14:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, U+302 COMBINING CIRCUMFLEX ACCENT. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 7 November 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_November_6&oldid=1050185297"