Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 5

Also delete:

The Cheetah Girls: The Series → The Cheetah Girls (TV Series)

The article these redirects have been linked to has been deleted. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 21:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as R1. --My old username 22:02, 5 September 2006 (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 (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Also

0.999 → Proof that 0.999... equals 1

0.9 = 1 → Proof that 0.999... equals 1

0.99 = 1 → Proof that 0.999... equals 1

0.999 = 1 → Proof that 0.999... equals 1

0.9 equals 1 → Proof that 0.999... equals 1

0.99 equals 1 → Proof that 0.999... equals 1

0.999 equals 1 → Proof that 0.999... equals 1

It's just wrong without the ellipsis. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's wrong, but could someone that types in 0.999 honestly be looking for anything else? —Mets501 (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not everyone would know the exact page title. These can help people locate the page and therefore aid in the search. Finally, they do not appear to be harmful in any way.--My old username 21:01, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mets501 and My old username. 1ne 23:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, particularly the first three. Who would be searching for this anyway? Rbraunwa 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment isn't being wrong being harmful? Might as well have [[.]] or 9 (number) redirect here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see how not having ... makes redirect harmful. Also 9 (number) is a bad comparision because it has nothing to do with this equation number while all the other redirects do. I also loooked at the list of why to delete a redirect (relates to harmfulness) and being "wrong" was not listed. Personally I would find it harmful to delete them all because It would make the page harder to find. Finally the . and 9 (number) would likely be deleted as not making much sense, however the others do because they reference the equation. --My old username 21:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - they are likely search terms for the page and hopefully once it is located the searcher will come away enlightened enough to type it right next time. It's not "harmful" unless they aren't educated by what they find as a result of their search. Yomangani^talk 17:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - potentially likely search term. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 14:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The redirects do no harm, and they are all search terms the average person would type in. Who honestly searches for that by typing in "Proof that 0.999... equals 1"?--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 23:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Why not?Voice-of-All 00:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't this be closed? The result is pretty clearly Keep...--KojiDude ^{(viva la BAM!)} 21:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-administrators may close decisions which are unambiguous "keep" decisions. Nfitz 23:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect containing multiple single quotes in the page title. Not a likely search or linking term --Gavia immer 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, R3 implausible typo. feydey 18:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now. It documents a recent two-step pagemove. The redirect will help the original reader/editors find the correct title. Rossami (talk) 22:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per feydey. 1ne 23:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Rbraunwa 16:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect containing multiple single quotes in the page title. Not a likely search or linking term --Gavia immer 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, R3. feydey 18:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per feydey. 1ne 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect containing multiple single quotes in the page title. Not a likely search or linking term --Gavia immer 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. R3. 1ne 23:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as R3. per ine. Also the target itself is a redirect. --My old username 02:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect containing multiple single quotes in the page title. Not a likely search or linking term --Gavia immer 17:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. R3. 1ne 23:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three uses it of seem to refer to the generic style of circus music, not the specific piece of music. Should either redirect to Circus, or better yet, made into its own article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This piece of music (at least in North America) is synonymous with the circus. Now I know what that certain piece of music's name is. 1ne 23:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• COmment True to a point, but the same could be said about many articles -- any article about it would mention Entry, be it the normal circus one or a new one. There's no link to Carmina Burana from Dramatic trailer music as an example of something similar. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Was that deleted or was it never created. If it was never created it does not have much bearing because all that would mean is that someone didn't think that before. A precident of a simlar redirect being deleted would make a stonger case. --My old username 21:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nope, just something I thought of off the top of my head. Still, the main fact remains that there are three links to circus music, and not one of them specifically refers to Entry of the Gladiators. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 01:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because in the article is is stated "the march has since become indelibly linked to clowns and the circus,". Based on that a link to circus music can be made. --My old username 21:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Circus music" (and its performers) was phenomenon specific enough to have article of its own, once. Pavel Vozenilek 03:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is not a deletion critera and it does not make any sense. If you think that circus music derserves to be an article create one or ask someone to do so. There is no need to delete this redirect to do so. I am also not aware of any redirects being deleted because they were once articles. --My old username 19:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I went ahead and requested the article. I still say for now it should redirect to circus though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 00:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would a disambiguation page work for now? Nfitz 21:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could see that as a possible solution. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]