Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 2

February 2

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 2, 2010

Fourth Studio Album (Rihanna album)

The result of the discussion was keep. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect that has served its purpose. The album was named Rated R (Rihanna album) and was released late last year. — ξxplicit 23:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep as it's still getting quite a few hits. I'd wait until the visitors tail off a bit more than they have done. Thryduulf (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it could be used in some external inbound links, I see no harm in keeping the redirect so that we don't break such links on other sites. --Taelus (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's probably best to keep redirects such as these if even their obvious usefulness has expired. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why don't we just create a page for every friggin album ever made on wikipedia, even if it's not notable or encyclopedic. Get the picture!?Shamhat456 (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, this album is notable (and therefore encyclopaedic) see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fourth Studio Album (Rihanna album). This discussion is solely about whether there should be a redirect to the article (which currently resides at Rated R (Rihanna album)) from this title. In most cases we should not have either articles or redirects at "<artist>'s Nth Studio Album (<artist> album)" titles (see WP:HAMMER for an essay about this), but because of it's history (see the AfD) and current traffic stats, those of us who have made "keep" recommendations feel that this is an exception (temporarily in my opinion, possibly not in the others' opinions). Thryduulf (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It should also be noted that Shamhat456 has been indefinitely blocked. B.Wind (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bung-pwee

The result of the discussion was deleted by Tbsdy lives with the rationale "Neologism made by non-serious account." Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No google hits Skäpperöd (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try Asian-language version with Asian characters.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Monkey Keep - keep with a couple furry creatures picking lice off each other's heads. DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 21:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification, please? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why ask? This is a barely serious editor, and I may be exaggerating. Oh, user is now blocked indefinitely. Does that mean this dumb redirect can be speedily deleted? Drmies (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would think so: I've tagged it with {{db-vandal}} and crossed my fingers. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In all the types of google search I've looked at, there is just a single hit. This hit is for a single entry on a blog (an unreliable source) from July 2008, which states it as a Tiwanese term meaning a fart, implying that not only is the redirect not notable it's also wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Volcano Nut

The result of the discussion was delete. Please note that the only three accounts opposed to deletion were indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing and/or abusing multiple accounts—the result would have been the same had they not been blocked, but still it is worth mentioning. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no plausible link to the nut corporation that this currently redirects to. The only real volcano nuts are people who are crazy about vulcanoes, per this Google News search, and it's not a viable encyclopedic search term. Drmies (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep See below.Nick Crthylbruillymoses (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Volcano Nut refers to the massive amounts of Ejaculation that can be excreted by male pornstar Peter North (pornographer); it is a very common term and he himself has often used the expression in his films and video clips.Nick Crthylbruillymoses (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Drmies. No reliable sources support a valid target for this redirect. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Call Peter yourself; he will confirm.Nick Crthylbruillymoses (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did; he says we'll have to wait for his autobiography to come out; whatever your source is, it's less reliable than North's ejaculatory prowess. Drmies (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you did indeed call, he would confirm. And, there's no need to insult an aging porn king. Besides, I'm sure he could demonstrate his prowess to you directly, if you'd like a taste.Nick Crthylbruillymoses (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be original research, a "no-no" with Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources for usage with the nut corporation or Peter North as a search target for a redirect to either articles (or to create a disimbig).--blue520 17:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I originally tried to find any link between Peter North and "Volcano Nut" when Nick Crthylbruillymoses added it, and I couldn't find anything anywhere. Additionally, I agree with the others above that the nut company does not seem to be associated with the phrase either. Windchaser (talk) 18:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete current redirect as the target has no mentions of "Volcano Nut" or "volcano nut." Even Nick([1]) admits that his alternative meaning has no support by reliable sources; thus this would not be a valid target for retargeting, and there is not even one valid bluelink destination for inclusion on a possible disambiguation page. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I was in Hawaii last summer, I actually bought a ton of these - they are grown there near volcanos. And they are commonly referred to as Volcano nuts. DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That is an I know it argument (which is one to avoid) for having an article about volcano nuts, not a reason for keeping a redirect from the title "Volcano Nut" to an article about a specific producer of macadamia nuts. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. As per the nominator, the only reliable references (and >95% of all references) I can find to the term "volcano nut" use it to mean someone who has a keen interest in vulcanology. This is the case even when I try and explicitly exclude things like "lava" and "erruption" and expicitly include things like "eat" and "macadamaia". I would support a retargetting to match these findings but the closest article match I can think of is vulcanology (vulcanologist redirects there) and that would be like redirecting bird watcher to ornithology. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not see a use as a valid redirect. Google searches produce nothing more, as User:Thryduulf has stated, than as term for a volcano enthusiast. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who Cares Everyone calls the Mauna Loa nuts Volcano Nuts. But, is it really worth spending this much attention about a small insignificant redirect?? Shamhat456 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If everybody does call Mauna Loa nuts "Volcano Nuts" then we should have a redirect or article at this title. However, those of us who have looked have not so far been able to find any evidence that this is the case. If everybody does call them as you say they do, then there should be some evidence they do - can you help us find it? Thryduulf (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    On Hershey's website, they refer to the Mauna Loa Volcano nuts as their "namesake nuts". How do you reference something so commonly used in Hawaii that there is no reference? I guess an example of this could be the term Bandaid to describe bandages whether or not they are Bandaid brand or not.Shamhat456 (talk) 23:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A term that might apply - Genericized trademark. Shamhat456 (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    When searching for references to things like this for Wiktionary purposes, looking in popular culture, books and magazines that discuss everyday life - books by local authors, local news papers, and things like that are often useful. I'm in Britain and have never been to Hawaii so I'm not at all familiar with the local culture, but the point of references is so that people like me can verify what is written is correct. Thryduulf (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a Google search of the phrase "Volcano Nut" (in caps) yields no results posited by Shamhat456 - but two listings from YellowKnows are "Volcano Nut Distributors" and "Volcano Nut Wholesalers"... and neither of them are listed because they deal with nuts grown and harvested on the side of a volcano, but both listings pertain to businesses that are based in Volcano, Hawaii. The Hershey's "namesake nuts" are officially "Hershey's Mauna Loa" nuts. Over 99% of the Google hits are for volcano enthusiasts' blogs and other pages. As far as the purported pornographical meaning is concerned, I have yet to see its use/definition in that context in any reliable source. B.Wind (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

""the Evangelist"" Philip

The result of the discussion was delete both. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These bizarre redirects with two sets of quotation marks should be deleted - even "The Evangalist" Philip and "The Cruel" Peter don't exist. They have no incoming article space links. Thryduulf (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, can't see any plausible use of these as search terms, nor use of them in inbound external links. Two sets of quotation marks is bizarre indeed... --Taelus (talk) 11:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I figured if it showed up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification/X-Z, there was a chance some automated process would generate it again, and someone else would have to spend a few minutes wondering what to do with it. A redirect might save time in the future, but it's not a big deal either way. Tom Harrison Talk 13:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have said that the existence of that incoming link was the reason I didn't just tag them for speedy deletion as recently created implausible typos. I suspect that the double quotation marks are due to some error in some automated process somewhere along the line. Thryduulf (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's probably the case - someone scanned in a 1911 Britannica and a script linked each heading. There are others of these, wildly implausible spellings, that must be OCR scanning errors. Maybe someone familiar with the project will give an opinion. Tom Harrison Talk 13:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Philip the Evangelist is a good enough page and has everything necessary for that reference.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There already is a Philip the Evangelist Page. Shamhat456 (talk) 20:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of a redirect with that comment. This is not a duplicate article, it is a redirect to the Philip the Evangelist article from the title """the Evangelist"" Philip. This is a discussion about whether this redirect should exist or not. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete both (CSD R3) as they were both created last month and the multiple quotation marks are a most highly unlikely improbable search item (one is much more likely to input "the Evangelist" than ""the Evangelist""). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. Seriously? Not even The Evangelist Philip nor The Cruel Peter exists (under any capitalization). Please.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, can't remember any time that I've typed a link that had two adjacent sets of quotation marks — it's quite improbable. Nyttend (talk)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shteynberg

The result of the discussion was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This was left behind when I moved this new article to its current name. I don't think it really fits any of the speedy criteria, but I also don't think it's appropriate to redirect the surname directly to this artist. I can't find evidence that he's known under "Shteynberg" as a mononym, and there are plenty of other people with whom he shares the surname.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I tagged it with db-g6 anyway for a quick admin review, the surname page shouldn't be a redirect to one single use of the name. Also, the page had existed for a very short period of time before being moved, thus there won't be any links to preserve I would guess. --Taelus (talk) 09:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were no incoming article space links, so I've gone ahead and deleted this under [[WP:CSD#G6]. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Warmergate

The result of the discussion was keep Warmergate, no consensus for HARRY READ ME.txt (no prejudice against immediate renomination in an individual nomination), and delete the rest. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as either the connection to the target is not obvious or the redirect is so misleading or (in the case of the last nominee) too general to cause confusion. None of these terms appear in the text of the target article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. We have a useful search engine, we don't need every remotely connected term as a redirect. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete obvious bad faith creations William M. Connolley (talk) 09:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to ignore this insult the first time, but it's bothering me too much not to comment. To blindly assume that there was bad intentions in the creation of these redirects when you are ignorant of my motivation shows that you are acting by knee-jerk reaction, not by reason. Good contributors get chased away from Wikipedia because of attitudes like yours. Deli nk (talk) 13:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination statement. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Warmergate. It is a common nickname for the incident and is a plausible search term. No comment on the others. Deli nk (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Warmergate, Harry-read-me as possible search terms. Delete others. Tom Harrison Talk 13:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — no, we don't have "a useful search engine", our search engine sucks; that's why we have redirects. I certainly find it plausible that someone would type in HARRY_READ_ME.txt or 'redefine what the peer-review literature is' into the search box, since these terms and phrases were widely used in discussions of Climategate. That's why I created these redirects. *** Crotalus *** 14:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Warmergate, it seems to be a plausible enough search term (according to Google News), but the rest should go: they don't even look like search terms. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I agree with both Stephan Schulz and William M. ConnolleyNick Crthylbruillymoses (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Speedy delete" is not an option. Your agreement lacks a reason. Drmies (talk) 18:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The argument can be made for two of them (HARRY READ ME.txt and Redefine what the peer-review literature is) as "recently created implausible typos or misnomers" (WP:CSD#R3) if an admin agrees that early December 2009 is sufficiently recent. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In addition, the Warmergate redirect was speedily deleted 26 November 2009. This is a recreation. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination statement.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This editor is blocked indefinitely. Drmies (talk) 01:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep warmergate as it is a common term, even if offensive: [2], per WP:R#KEEP (lack of neutrality in redirects is therefore not a valid reason for deletion). Keep the .txt, as it is a valid search term [3]. No comment on the rest. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warmergate should definitely be kept. The others are of marginal utility, in my opinion, but that's enough to keep them too. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as per 147.70.242.54 Shamhat456 (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely keep Warmergate; that is a term in actual use to describe the issue, and even if it is not neutral in itself it should be possible to find our actual article on the topic by starting from there. Weak keep HARRY_READ_ME.txt; it is a potential search term related to the topic. Delete the others; they are inappropriate and not especially useful. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Warmergate as it has been reported in more than a few reliable sources (and I've added a cited, bolded mention in the target article). Delete the rest all as they are mentioned nowhere in the target and either the phrase is too general to be useful or used only by blogs (which tend not to be reliable sources per WP:RS). B.Wind (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Update. Addition was quickly reverted. Since the target is under article probation, I won't touch it again, and if the term is not mentioned in the article, there is no purpose for having a Warmergate redirect. B.Wind (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep HARRY READ ME.txt, or redirect it to a more appropriate page. The fact that it is, or is not, discussed in the main climategate article is a separate matter. The fact that the wikipedia search engine is useful for only page titles is well known. The rest are of no significance either way. Q Science (talk) 08:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

52020

The result of the discussion was delete. Black Falcon (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; only mainspace edit of creator; not mentioned on target and no clear reason why 52020 should redirect to Google found in web and wikipedia searches MegaSloth (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, bizarre. It would also be a ZIP code in Dubuque, Iowa, if it existed, which it doesn't.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 03:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as the target article doesn't provide context on this redirect. I am intrigued as to what relevance it could have though... A search doesn't reveal anything. --Taelus (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no relevance to the target is apparent from anywhere I can think of looking. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - potentially confusing, maybe created as a test. Tom Harrison Talk 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable number.DeeplnsideMioAkiyama (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No relevance/usefulness. Gnome de plume (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have spoken. Shamhat456 (talk) 20:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Blue Rondo a la Turk

The result of the discussion was retargetted. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Blue Rondo a la Turk" should link to Blue Rondo à la Turk. Squandermania (talk) 05:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_2&oldid=1148048008"