Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 10

The result of the debate was delete.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that this singer spelled her name with some capitalized Greek letters on a few of her albums, but I don't think it's realistic to have a redirect like this. GlassCobra (Review) 23:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I seriously doubt anyone would use this term to search for this person. Ariel♥Gold 23:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• If she really did spell her name that way (that is, if the claims in the article can be verified), then this would appear to be an entirely appropriate redirect to keep. Note that spelling her name is different from using a few fancy fonts on an album cover. But while we're sorting it out, the redirect is certainly doing no harm. Keep unless it can be confirmed that this is non-notable. Rossami (talk) 02:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that it is correct; however, anyone well acquainted enough with the artist's work to know this variation would surely know how to spell her name otherwise, right? GlassCobra (Review) 12:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Who will use greek letters in an English Wikipedia? Marlith ^T/C 04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• user:Ryulong attempted to speedy-delete this as "nonsense". While speedy-deletion was inappropriate (since the RfD is still ongoing), it's probably reasonable to consider his/her opinion as a "delete". Rossami (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense redirect, totally unnecessary. GlassCobra (Review) 23:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the edit summary used to create it, delete (possibly speedily) as probable vandalism. Rossami (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not vandalism, it was done in good faith. Actually, all these redirects that I've nominated were created by the same person. She's not a vandal, though. GlassCobra (Review) 05:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a highly unlikely search term. Created by an editor I've had contact with via WP:AFC, I believe it is a very young girl who has good intentions, but the redirect is still unnecessary. Ariel♥Gold 17:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete, nonsense, who would search for this? Marlith ^T/C 03:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per above. Funny though, I'd like someone to search that, expecting a result. Dfrg.msc 06:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• user:Ryulong attempted to speedy-delete this as "nonsense". While speedy-deletion was inappropriate (since the RfD is still ongoing), it's probably reasonable to consider his/her opinion as a "delete". Rossami (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This name appears in only one Spongebob episode. Anyone who's seen the episode would probably know enough to search for Spongebob in itself. GlassCobra (Review)

• Keep or else someone will make it a useless article. Rocket000 01:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unlikely search term. Marlith ^T/C 04:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not going to be searched. Dfrg.msc 06:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• user:Ryulong attempted to speedy-delete this as "nonsense". While speedy-deletion was inappropriate (since the RfD is still ongoing), it's probably reasonable to consider his/her opinion as a "delete". Rossami (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The search term seems a little too specific, doubtful that anyone would be entering this exact search. GlassCobra (Review) 23:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or someone might make it be a useless article.Kitty53 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I don't have a foreign language keyboard or any languages on my computer, I'm completely unsure what this is supposed to say. It looks like ???? to me. I doubt this would be a search term used by those on English Wikipedia, regardless of what language it is in, and the reason of "someone might create this page" is a bridge one can cross when, and if, that ever happens. Ariel♥Gold 17:36, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or rename to 小坂りゆ, as the current redirect will never be typed. Her Japanese name might be entered, but not with parenthetical romaji. 132.205.44.5 21:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• user:Ryulong attempted to speedy-delete this as "non-english variant that is highly unlikely to be used". While speedy-deletion was inappropriate (based both on the arguments already raised in this discussion and that the reason given is not a CSD criterion), it's probably reasonable to consider his/her opinion as a "delete". Rossami (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#R2. Page deleted by User:RockMFR. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Cross-space redirect, I highly doubt that anyone would type in this phrase, looking for that particular userpage. GlassCobra (Review) 23:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete G1 Nonsense. Rocket000 01:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was that I am using my discretion to delete. No one would type in this as the title because it means nothing in any language. The title in Japanese is much different.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highly doubtful that people would search for the Japanese name of an English show. Definitely unnecessary. GlassCobra (Review) 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Redirects for notable foreign language equivalents are allowed by precedent. Rossami (talk) 03:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Goes for the same on other language wikipedias. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how many users have Japanese keyboards, but I highly doubt they'd type these characters into the English Wikipedia. GlassCobra (Review) 23:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is the kanji for the words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitty53 (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Kitty53 22:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't have a foreign language keyboard or any languages on my computer, so I'm unsure what this is supposed to say. It just looks like やまとなでしこ to me. I doubt this would be a search term used by those on English Wikipedia, and is an unnecessary redirect. Ariel♥Gold 17:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most of the people here know english. Marlith ^T/C 04:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was keep as an alternate name. Non-admin closure. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really seem like a search term that someone could be conceivably expected to type in. GlassCobra (Review) 23:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep article says it's his nickname. If someone wants to find out what it means, why should they have to go to a search page? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Valid alternate (nick)name of person, per the article. WWF personalities have their "ring names" as redirects, this is a similar and valid situation. Ariel♥Gold 17:40, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Marlith ^T/C 04:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Created by User:God doesn't exist, who edited Existence of God [1], with commentary, and was blocked for username violation. This redirect seems unnecessary. Ariel♥Gold 21:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an inappropriate redirect (and probably created with questionable motives). Rossami (talk) 03:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This redirect was created by someone's WP:POINT account - I don't see any real reason to take it seriously. --B 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV redirect? Marlith ^T/C 04:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - given that is a harmful and inappropiate redirect. David Pro 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Kept. There is no consensus for deletion. -- JLaTondre 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect on unencyclopaedic subject: 'unusual topics' is a meta (and arguably POV) description which doesn't belong in the article namespace. Terraxos 18:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only because it's a non-shortcut cross-namespace link. However, if someone types this in, the target's probably what they're looking for. It is POV, unencyclopedic, and meta (self-ref), of course. Rocket000 19:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This redirect documents the pagemove of a page that was originally created in December 2002 (long before the creation of the separate namespaces). Pagemoves are generally considered useful history. And in this particular case, there is a reasonably high probability that this page is still externally linked. While it is a cross-namespace redirect, I don't see any usage indicating that readers are confusing this with an "encyclopedia topic". With no reasonable possibility of confusion, it's safe to keep where it is. Rossami (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I didn't realise this was the result of a pagemove. In that case, can I withdraw my nomination? Terraxos 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Somebody other than you has also recommended deletion. To uphold the spirit of establishing consensus, the discussion should run its course. If all parties agree with keeping it, then it could qualify as speedy keep. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 10:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the explanation. In that case, I'll just change my !vote to Keep.Terraxos 17:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a redirect of very interesting topic, might be still referenced by external websites. --Kubanczyk 19:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cross namespace.Marlith ^T/C 04:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per Rossami. Dfrg.msc 06:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was Deleted. While Shakespeare may have originated the quote, the phrase is used widely without specific reference to Shakespeare or his works. As it has wider usage, a redirect does not seem appropriate. -- JLaTondre 21:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Shakespearean quote should not redirect to article on its author 193.34.186.55 13:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to be from Henry IV, Part 1 -- point it there? Kusma (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Kusma. Retarget to the play. Phrase has some coverage so it's fair to keep it a blue link. (And you can safely add some quotes to the article without destroying the encyclopedicity, my paper encyclopedia contains key quotes from a number of well-known plays.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If someone knows enough to be looking for the specific quote, they should be looking for it at Wikiquote, not in the encyclopedia. Redirects for quotes (that don't document pagemoves or content mergers) don't fit our mission. Rossami (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have other phrase articles, like Colorless green ideas sleep furiously. If someone wants an article on this, the play will do until one is written; and it links to Wikisource. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is completely uneeded and unused. Marlith ^T/C 04:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This quote must be copied to Wikiquote. David Pro 17:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Unnecessary and misleading redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by East718 (talk • contribs)

• Comment I have changed the redirect to point to social activists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fosnez (talk • contribs)

• Delete (even with the update to social activists). At the present we have a double redirect, social activists points to activism. The problem with fixing the redirect so that it points to "activism" is that there is no list of social activists on that page, which would make this redirect confusing. If a "List of..."-page is a redirect, then the target should contain the list indicated in the redirect. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unrelated. Marlith ^T/C 04:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unrelated and illogical. Dfrg.msc 06:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as author request (WP:CSD#G7). Kusma (talk) 05:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unused template redirect (except for one user). Redirects aren't cheap in the template namespace, and this is a good name being wasted. -Rocket000 04:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree that there might be better things to use {{@}} for than a duplication of {{!-}}. Kusma (talk) 13:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete i created this without realising that {{!-}} was out there already. There is no point having redundant templates. David D. (Talk) 04:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 02:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Unused and unrelated template redirect. - Rocket000 22:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, very, very unlikely search term. meshach 17:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per above. Marlith ^T/C 04:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Okay, I've tried to figure this out, but for the life of me, I just can't. The redirect is to a template that says "This article may be too technical for a general audience." What on earth does the redirect title have to do with technical articles? It doesn't even make sense, the redirect page isn't even proper grammar, and has nothing to do with technical articles. Ariel♥Gold 00:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Haha! Very funny, but no. :P GlassCobra 06:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Chocolate kettle, funny though. That's going in my collection. Dfrg.msc 06:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.