Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 16

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 Sith per B.Wind ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Naga Sadow → List of Star Wars characters (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Naga Sadow isn't mentioned on List of Star Wars characters Svick (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to article and send to AfD. Seems like the redirection was inappropriate, since EEMIV (talk · contribs) never bothered to merge on his redirection. So unredirect. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 05:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Sith - this was an unvandalized article only for the first 24 hours of its existence (diff of last non-vandalized version of article). On the other hand, this has been a redirect for the past 13 months, justifiably as the character is not significant enough to merit his own article. Although Naga Sadow is nowhere to be found in the target article, the name can be found more than trivially in two articles (Sith and Tales of the Jedi: The Fall of the Sith Empire) and trivially in Tales of the Jedi: Golden Age of the Sith. Based on this, the first is the more logical target for retargeting. B.Wind (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Jorj Car'das → List of Star Wars characters (links to redirect • history • stats) 

No mention in target article, probably not notable enough for mention there, as this guy is only a minor character in the Star Wars universe (see entry on a Star Wars wiki). The Evil IP address (talk) 14:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not in the target, so confusing. Doesn't look notable enough to add to the list. It used to have been part of List of minor Star Wars characters (see original version), apparently, but that itself was merged into List of Star Wars characters in '08...or something along those lines, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - mention nowhere in the target list article and only trivially twice in Chronology of Star Wars (with both links on the same line as the character's name not mentioning him at all). B.Wind (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Killiondude (talk) 07:01, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• TOTUS → The Rush Limbaugh Show#Jargon (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Per discussion at Talk:Jargon_of_The_Rush_Limbaugh_Show#TOTUS, this term was deemed not noteworthy for that article, along with questions of whether Limbuagh originated it at all. Without a place to redirect to, this fringe meme should just be deleted, IMO. It certainly has no place as a standalone article, per past deletion logs and past AfDs on the matter. Tarc (talk) 13:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove redirect, send article to incubator... I think there is a stand alone article here. Whether it was originated by Limbaugh or not can be researched and cited... but no matter who originated it, as an enduring bit of political humor the "Acronym" has become notable (it has been mentioned by Jay Leno and other humorists in their monologues, noted in news stories, etc). It has spawned numerous spoof "POTUS blogs" and twitter pages. Blueboar (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That is, no offense, patently absurd. A non-notable meme rejected as such in several past AfDs is not going to return in article form via this route, no. Request a separate DRV once this discussion is concluded if you really wish to go down that route. Tarc (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Teleprompter usage by Barack Obama (the article that was sent to AfD) was not a notable topic and was correctly deleted. But I am talking about a very different article... one discussing the term 'TOTUS' (or the longer 'Teleprompter of the United States') in terms of pop culture impact, as a piece of political humor. That topic may be notable enough for an article. A google search for "Teleprompter of the United States" (in quotes) on google returns 22,000 hits. That indicates notariety, if not notability. More importantly, the various POTUS blogs have been commented on by mainstream media sources. That does go directly towards notability. You liked the deletion log for Teleprompter of the United States... but did not link any AFD discussions on that title. Blueboar (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no separate AfD; that title was an end-around attempted by the original article's creator, as seen by the move entry in the deletion log, and a few G10 speedies after that. During the original AfD the article underwent heavy editing to the point where it was addressing the term's usage rather than the original subject, but that was rejected as well; see this side discussion. Also, 22k google hits is quite low, and as noted back then and in my nomination rationale here, blogs, fringe websites, and OpEds do not pass WP:RS. Tarc (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But enough mainstream and reliable references, I think, to justify an article. In any case, it isn't a high priority for me. I have stated my view, and am happy to leave it at that. Blueboar (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per consensus on discussion page on the former-article-turned-redirect-by-AfD. Google hits don't tell the story vis-à-vis inclusion in Wikipedia: it's coverage (or lack thereof) in reliable sources independent of Limbaugh. Anybody remember "Gorbasm"? This falls right next to it. B.Wind (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. The redirect clearly serves no purpose. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Winter (novel) John Marsden → Winter (Marsden novel) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Mistitled artifact of a pagemove with no incoming links; please see related RfD at WP:RFD#Winter (Australian novel).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as fast as possible - it is astounding that it has lasted as long as it has (it officially too old for a speedy deletion). To say that it's malformed is an understatement. It is most highly unlikely to be used as a search item. Time to put it out of its misery. B.Wind (talk) 18:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I normally don't mind these things, but this has no plausibility for anything at all, searching or linking. Per above, it's also complete WP:NAME vio, clogs up the search box suggestion thingies, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Killiondude (talk) 07:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Princess Theatre (29th St.) → Princess Theatre (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete; the redirect target is a disambiguation page that contains no reference to a "Princess Theatre" on 29th Street in any city. R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, appears to be an unhelpful and misleading redirect per nom.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 11:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as improper disambiguation (if there are multiple Princess Theatres/Princess Theaters, they should be disambiguated by city, for example). Virtually every city with numbered streets have a 29th Street, thus making it virtually worthless. B.Wind (talk) 18:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I was all set to recommend deleting this, and then keeping it after looking at the stats (it's getting between 70 and 200 hits a month), which is very high for a title that has always been a redirect. On further investigation this is likely because it's linked from Template:Broadway theatres (in the "defunct" section). This 1909 New York Times article seems to suggest that it is long defunct (and google street view suggests the site is currently a low-end jewellers), but likely notable enough for inclusion. I'd normally suggest deleting to leave a redlink, but any article should have a better title than this, so I'm not sure what I recommend. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Princess Theatre is about the former theater on 39th Street in New York (I reverted a very recent cut-and-paste move). I asked the redirect's creator about it and he says it was just a typo he didn't know how to get rid of. Station1 (talk) 06:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]