Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 4

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. I will not object to converting this redirect to a dab. Ruslik_Zero 15:46, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wall Street Crash → Wall Street Crash of 1929 (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Either this redirect needs to be deleted, or it needs to be turned into a disambiguation page. There have been multiple stock market crashes on Wall Street including the 1929 crash that kicked off the Great Depression, the one in 1987, a slow weeklong one in 2008, and the recent flash crash. Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the 1929 crash is what one thinks of when the 'Wall Street Crash' is mentioned. The 1987 crash can be found, albeit indirectly, through the hatnote. The hatnote does need improving but that is an editorial matter. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as too vague. Disambiguate only if articles exist for all the main stock market plunges. Train2104 (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is one of those cases where, though the redirect is potentially confusing, it is appropriate as there is a primary meaning. Looking at 'what links here', all the uses of Wall Street Crash seem to refer to the great crash of 1929. There have been many other crashes, of course (see {{Stock market crashes}}), but they can be handled by having a hatnote link to List of stock market crashes on the destination page. Robofish (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per above Jimzah the Jimmy (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambig, I can imagine someone looking for the recent financial meltdown. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - a disambiguation page is not needed. The present redirect takes the reader to the primary use; if the reader wants a different crash that is easily found from the 'Stock market crashes' template on the target. When there is a clear prime use we don't require the reader to have to click through a disamb page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate—Wall Street has crashed many, many times throughout history. While the 1929 crash is the most famous, I think it's likely that people searching for this term might be looking for the more-recent Financial crisis of 2007–2010 article. –Grondemar 22:20, 5 August 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 speedy deletion as vandalism (CSD G3). Jesse Viviano (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The board of outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth → Wikipedia Review (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Silly, possibly pejorative redirect, and a highly unlikely search term. (If you're wondering, I stumbled upon this by searching for 'weeping and gnashing of teeth', a Biblical phrase.) Robofish (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as silly and completely implausible. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - failed attempt at humour. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as implausible. Train2104 (talk) 18:39, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a stupid cheapshot, regardless of one's opinion about the WR crowd. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:54, 4 August 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 Keep, and nominator withdrew their concerns too. --Taelus (Talk) 23:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AEKDB → Kappa Sigma (links to redirect • history • stats) 

This doesn't seem to fall under WP:R and seems to fall specifically under WP:R#DELETE #8. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 07:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, this is the Kappa Sigma fraternity's motto, so it falls under WP:R as a related word and sub-topic to that fraternity. WP:R#DELETE speaks of typo errors and "novel or obscure synonyms," but this is a very well-known motto that appears on the fraternity's coat of arms. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that one might enter this while researching Kappa Sigma so the redirect is helpful. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - explained in the article and it doesn't appear refer to anything else notable so it is not confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, (nom) OK no big deal. jheiv ^{talk contribs} 04:13, 7 August 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 No consensus to delete. --Taelus (Talk) 23:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OBAMA! → Barack Obama (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Implausible search term because of the all Caps and the exclamation point. Tavix |  Talk  02:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep - a bit unnecessary, but just about possible as a search term, and it's fair to assume that this is what someone who searches for 'OBAMA!' is looking for. Robofish (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - this is used as a search term a few times each month. Doesn't meet WP:RFD#DELETE. Harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per RFD#DELETE #8, an implausible typo for someone on an encyclopedia. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:49, 5 August 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 --Taelus (Talk) 23:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Bush-McCain tax cuts → Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Deletion, makes no sense -- no one named McCain is mentioned in either the original target article or the other Bush tax cut law, the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. There are no incoming links, but it's too old(?) for speedy deletion I've been told. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The McCain would be John McCain seeing as this was created during the 2008 elections, but delete per nom. Tavix |  Talk  02:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Political positions of John McCain#Budget, taxes, and deficits which describes McCain's position on Bush's tax cuts. Bridgeplayer (talk) 07:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah not bad, I wish I had thought of that while I was disambiguating Bush tax cuts. But as long as we're already here, it's still pretty implausible for a redir there. -- Kendrick7^talk 03:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - arguably POV and misleading, since it implies John McCain had a large role in passing these tax cuts, and not a likely search term. Robofish (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Robofish (especially the latter). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. This is an obvious POV political attack. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:46, 5 August 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 Retarget to Kanaka_Dasa#Major_works --Taelus (Talk) 23:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Haribhaktisara → [[]] (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Deletion; soft redirect to here, non-English version of Wikipedia. Per WP:SRD TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:27, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete, A1, no idea what this is supposed to be, other than a call to contribute to a different wiki page in another language. Hairhorn (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that something in the A1-A3 range would seem to apply, but it's a soft redirect and that guideline says that the A's can't be used. That's the reason I brought it, clumsily, here. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had no idea there was such a policy... still merits deletion, at whatever speed. Hairhorn (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, I think that if you look at the article on Obscure Wikipedia policies and guidelines you'll find a redirect to soft redirect. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Kanaka Dasa#Major works. Redirecting a work to the author is normal and helpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per User:Bridgeplayer. The redirect can still be helpful on the English wiki. Adelphoi En Kardia Dia Biou (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]