Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 23

March 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 23, 2010

Tom Tom Theme

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 for deletion, defaulting to keep. There is plenty of precedent of redirecting non-notable songs to articles about albums containing them; the issue of converting into a dab page would be best discussed on the redirect's discussion page. Either way, the only participant in the discussion advocating deletion was the editor who presented the nomination (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Did I mention that this editor was banned indefinitely? Drmies (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • And? Are you saying that every song listed on every album article on WP needs a redirect? Drmies (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, no. But the nomination hasn't proffered a deletion rationale consistent with WP:RFD#DELETE; on the other hand, I have demonstrated that since it is listed on the target article, it is a plausible search item covered in WP:RFD#KEEP. The status of the originator of this redirect is irrelevant as the redirect was clearly created in good faith. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That they were indef blocked is a pretty clear sign that there was no good faith. WP:RFD#DELETE, it seems to me, talks about redirects from likely search terms, misspellings, and other terms that could conceivably be articles. The suggestion that WP:RFD licenses a redirect for every single song in the world is patently absurd, and WP:RFD#KEEP, conversely, provides some rationales for keeping: and I note that every single one of its conditions are NOT met for these redirects. Do you wish to argue in good faith that you personally have found, in your experience, that each and every one of these redirects served a purpose? That your keeps are not a blanket keep? (And if you look at the blocked editor's contributions, you'll see that I did not nominate every one of their redirects.)

          To restate: these are NOT likely search terms; there is no indication whatsoever that the songs are notable in some kind of way as to justify having a redirect. IPs reason to keep is that the songs exist; no one is disputing that. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

          • Please don't mischaracterise the justification that I proffered, but please re-read WP:RFD#KEEP and WP:RFD#DELETE as this is not WP:AfD as different standards apply to redirects as compared to articles. Second point: I contend that these have been nominated only because of the originating editor and not whether or not we should assume good faith with the edits (you know... focus on the edits instead of the editor?). We have had an abundance of precedence of redirecting non-notable song "articles" to the articles on the albums; similarly, we have had an abundance of precedence of redirecting non-notable albums "articles" to the notable acts that recorded them. The redirects can be easily overwritten should a "better" target come around (note my recommendation for The Shmenge Polka below). So your implied WP:ALLORNOTHING argument is a hollow one at best and not a valid one for deleting redirects. Consider each entry's merits on a case-by-case basis... as a closing (or a deleting) admin would have to do when this discussion is over. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think I am mischaracterizing anything. You said, "I have demonstrated that since it is listed on the target article, it is a plausible search item." Well, no--you haven't demonstrated the causality suggested in your statement, you have stated that since it is listed on the article page you take it to be a plausible search item, and I don't see how that mechanism works. We're talking about obscure songs on a children's album, not about hits or singles--is there any reason to suppose that someone is going to get it into their heads to look for "tom tom theme" unless that person has the album in their hands? But that is your suggestion here: because it is a song on an album, it is a plausible search term--"all or nothing" is more correctly applied to your argument, defaulting to "all," as is evidenced by looking down the page.

              I can live with Grondemar's suggestion, below. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems to be a plausible-enough search term as a song on the linked album. –Grondemar 16:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • After thinking about it, how about retargetting to the disambiguation page Tom tom? This page links to the tom-tom drum, several albums and songs including Tom Tom Club (album), and a TV series called Tom Tom. All of these could be plausible targets for Tom Tom Theme, so retargetting to the DAB page makes the most sense to me. –Grondemar 16:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no point in deleting redirects from non-notable song names. A redlink would only encourage creating articles for these songs. The nomination statement is also misleading since a song is not required to be notable in the first place to warrant a redirect. Presumably all or most of these are non-notable, since if they were notable they would by definition warrant a separate article. If the nominator feels that all of these redirects are useless, they're free to make a mass-nomination and see if that is supported by consensus. Jafeluv (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

L'Elephant

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 retargeted to Elephant (disambiguation) (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Did I mention that this editor was banned indefinitely? Drmies (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

God damn it

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, defaulting to keep. The discussion can continue on the redirect's talk page, but until there is a consensus, the redirect seems to be doing its job just the way it is. (non admin close). — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Wind (talk • contribs)

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Did I mention that this editor was banned indefinitely? Drmies (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget to Damn (disambiguation), 30+ hits a month shows this is in use. "God damn it" has more uses that just as title of a song, and the target is not an album so I suspect this nomination is incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are too many ways this can go (and clearly the phrase itself does not need disambiguation). The phrase is an invective, but in Wikipedia, invective redirects to libel (poetry), unfortunately. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, damnation actually seems much more appropriate than the other links on the DAB page. As User:Thryduulf indicates this redirect is in use, it makes sense to keep it pointing where it does for now. –Grondemar 03:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I got this clearly wrong; my apologies. Consider this nomination withdrawn. Thanks to the contributors, Drmies (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As there are differing views so far between keep, delete and retarget, I will not close this early as "nomination withdrawn", as the discussions might as well go ahead. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 07:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There's quite a bit about it (and/or it's variants) at the current target, specifically the Colloquialisms section; I'd say it's more logical to be pointed here than anywhere else (but...there's one thing I don't get. It's not a song. Has this been chnaged since the RfD started??) Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The target has not changed since it was created, and has never been a song. Drmies did though nominate a lot of redirects that are songs at about he same time as this one, all of these nominations have identical rationales for the nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shake a Toe

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Did I mention that this editor was banned indefinitely? Drmies (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Per 147.70.242.54's comments on this and other nominations by Drmies, this is not a valid reason to delete and this is a plausible search term. However this redirect is barely getting used, which is why my I've categorised my recommendation as "weak". Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Slow Day

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 04:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Did I mention that this editor was banned indefinitely? Drmies (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cowlit Night

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Did I mention that this editor was banned indefinitely? Drmies (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Spring Flowers

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 retargeted to spring flowers (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 16:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Did I mention that this editor was banned indefinitely? Drmies (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what about things that flower in springtime? 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the current target, List of early spring flowers and List of late spring flowers. Thryduulf (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with retarget recommendation above. –Grondemar 03:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn: I think it's ridiculous to have these kinds of entries on dab pages, but Thryduulf's dab page is a much better solution than the redirect. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retargetted. As the nomination has been withdrawn and the dab page links to things that flower in springtime (thus addressing 76.66.194.32's comments), I've retargetted Spring Flowers to the disambiguation page at Spring flowers. Thryduulf (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

C-A-N-A-D-A

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Did I mention that this editor was banned indefinitely? Drmies (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is an article called Canada on Wikipedia. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 147.70.242.54, but add a hatnote at the target article. Thryduulf (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, agree with User:Thryduulf's recommendation on the hatnote above. –Grondemar 16:28, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Canada (disambiguation) exists... 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and don't bother with a hatnote, no-one would type "C-A-N-A-D-A" when they are looking for "Canada". Polarpanda (talk) 15:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find that children sometimes spell words that way. Isn't that one of the intended audiences for Wikipedia? 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Children? Typing in solid caps with endashes between each letter? Maybe they might sound it out that way, but I've never in my life seen one type it. (Also, Keep - Hatnote seems sensible. Does no harm), Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Changing Garden of Mr. Bell

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 04:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Dee Myth

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 04:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Gorilla Song

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 retargeted to gorilla (disambiguation) (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Shmenge Polka

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 retargeted to The Shmenge Brothers (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to The Shmenge Brothers article on recurring SCTV polka-playing recurring characters. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestion, thanks. Motion withdrawn. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Booming and Zooming

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. The redirect can be overwritten should anybody wish to attempt dabification (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was thinking about the military usage when I saw this title. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate between the current target and an appropriate article for the military usage (whatever that is). Thryduulf (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Atsababy! (Life Is Great)

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Atsababy!

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Short version" of song title listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Atsababy

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "short version" of song title listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Life Is Great

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "short version" of title of song listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pleasure of Love

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

On the Line Again

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect for non-notable song. Drmies (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - listed on target page as one of the songs on the album. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments here. Jafeluv (talk) 12:26, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Delicious cake

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 Deleted.--Aervanath (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not mentioned at all in the target article, the redirect of the name of an obscure meme can be misleading as some people may stumble across it expecting a description of a type of food. As with the two immediately before this one, very little support from reliable sources to indicate that it is/was a significant meme (the term is, apparently, in the eye of the beholder) or that it even merits mention in Wikipedia in the first place. Unless it's to be used as a redirect to a "Delicious cake meme" article, this is better off deleted. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Edumacation

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 Deleted.--Aervanath (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not mentioned at all in the target article. It would seem more likely to be pointed to education instead, but only because it seems to be a humourous corruption of the word. Like "Dr. octagonapus" below, keeping this seems more a case of WP:ILIKEIT than one based on Wikipedia policy. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dr. octagonapus

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 Deleted.--Aervanath (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not mentioned at all in the target. Apparently notability as an internet meme is in the eye of the beholder: see Knowyourmeme.com listing for "Dr. Octagonapus". It's getting to the point where keeping some of these is simply a matter of WP:ILIKEIT rather than showing evidence of notability by citing reliable sources, even in the edit notes or discussion pages. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, though slightly liable to change - I've changed - well, more like tweaked - my mind on the whole "not in target" argument. I'm using part of User:Seresin's argument. Redirects like Barack Obama Presidential Library are BAD, they imply some information about the thing being searched is in the target. Which it's not (or wasn't, anyway, this is the year 2010 for future Wiki archive stalkers). However...this internet meme is in the target in a way...it is an internet meme after all. It has relevance. They're not the most helpful of things, so don't encourage mass creation, but if they're here, they're not doing much harm. An internet meme is being searched for, and the internet meme article appears. Not too disruptive, unless it could apply to something else or isn't an obvious meme. I won't lecture everyone on WP:CHEAP, I'll just link to it. Apologies for the lenght of this !vote, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Lord Spongefrog's rationale makes perfect sense... if the search item is mentioned in the target in the first place. The problem here is that there is nothing about this internet meme anywhere, not in the target, nor (according to the search engine) anywhere in mainspace. The only people who would know about this obscure internet meme would be disappointed about this redirect that points to an article that doesn't mention it at all; anybody else searching this misspelled title would have a hard time making the connection that it is a meme as they might be thinking about Doctor Octopus, for example. We're better off without it unless there is an actual context that would help identify it for people who are not fans of the term in the first place. B.Wind (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Geo-orphan

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. Ruslik_Zero 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Geo-" is completely useless in front of "orphan". We don't distinguish orphans. Magioladitis (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At one point geographical orphans (mostly hundreds of US municipalities created in a bot run a few years back) were being classified separately (to fall into a sub-category) because many could be easily de-orphaned using series templates, and the people doing that work did not want to have to sift through the general orphan population to find them. I don't know whether that's still the case. BTW, this RfD should have been listed on the Orphanage talk page. I'll do that now. -- Avocado (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's become obsolete.--Aervanath (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Do-orphan

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary "do-" before orphan! Unused. Magioladitis (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "do" originally stood for "de-orphan", which is still redundant. If it's not used, delete it.--Aervanath (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a shortcut for an orphan that someone did a "do-attempt". Unnecessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

template: R from unicode name

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. All names are UTF-8 anyway. The redirect is not helpful. Ruslik_Zero 19:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former title, now unused. Maybe for English speakers it is common to refer as Unicode just anything-that-lies-outside-Latin-1, but in Wikimedia all titles are in Unicode. To me, an Unicode name is, first of all, a character name, so a redirect from unicode name is something like Latin capital letter African D, not the thing which creator of this template had in the mind. Let’s eliminate an ambiguity. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep anything requiring multi-byte encoding would be a unicode title, single byte character encoding would not. It might need retargetting, since this should also be used on symbols that are not diacritics, or creation as a full template. 76.66.194.32 (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    So a title or a name? And what single byte character encoding do you mean? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 04:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Referring to such things as "unicode names" is problematic, since it implies that we have titles that aren't in Unicode. Moreover, it's unhelpful to refer to "unicode names" without specifying a particular encoding in any case. All of our page titles should be valid UTF-8; if we want to mark out titles using multibyte UTF-8, or titles using diacritics not found in English, then we should say so explicitly. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Raptor Jesus

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 Deleted.--Aervanath (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears nowhere in target article. Deleted twice via WP:AfD: once in 2005, once in 2009. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as here. ÷seresin 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Note) - Link now broken due to relisting, however the relevant RfD is the next one down on this page. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have amended the link to point to the correct target. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to prevent constant re-addition of a non-notable meme and any potential confusion. Seresin's argument holds no water. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notability does not govern content, and redirects can be protected. Your argument holds no water. ÷seresin 01:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two "delete" AfD closes, the latter mere months ago, are a good sign that the community opposed the creation of the redirect to replace the article in the first place. TPH's contention is a valid one.deletion log 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • AfDs ending in delete are no such sign; they only mean that, given the context, it was inappropriate for the article to exist. In fact, the suggestion of a redirect was made twice in the last AfD. ÷seresin 02:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Eleven deletions and two AfDs in the past five years seem to indicate that it would be better to salt this once and for all. Two "suggestions" of redirects in the 2009 RfD would have been closed as redirects if the closing admin had thought it to be supported by the community, but it wasn't. The history indicates that recreation of either the article or the redirect would not be advisable; clearly the term is no more appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia than it was in 2009... or 2007... or 2006... or 2005. B.Wind (talk) 05:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not true. Redirecting is often an editorial decision unless the sole outcome of the AfD is redirect. So the fact that the closer did not choose to stipulate a redirect should most certainly not be construed as indication consensus rejected the idea. ÷seresin 07:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless. Everyone contributing to this discussion except one editor wants deletion, and that one edit has not actually given a reason for keeping, but only opposed the reasons given for deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good thing it's your job to explain why it should be deleted, rather than mine to say why it shouldn't, eh? ÷seresin 01:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I relisted as this is tied into the below discussion which I also relisted, the argument for keep here being basically "the same reasons as for the other one". Thus, as I mentioned on the other discussion I relisted, I felt that allowing lengtheir discussion to gain full consensus would be more beneficial than doing a vote count to close as delete on the 7 day mark. Personally I would recommend closing this and the below together as their circumstances/scenario are highly similar, but other admins are free to close this whenever they feel a full consensus has been gained. --Taelus (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Relisted to generate more discussion about whether or not creating a disambiguation page is a fitting compromise. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what compromise disambig page has been proposed. ÷seresin 07:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • None have. I have stricken out that comment. Cunard (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I still don't think we should have deleted Raptor jesus - but we have. Nine times. And though I think the plucky little fella will one day battle his way into an honest-to-dromiceiomimus article, in the mean time I can't see any reason for keeping this redirect. Go with Godosaurus Rex, Raptor Jesus. Your teachings will not be forgotten. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Add that to the 11 deletions of the capitalised version and we have 20 reasons for salting both versions, as B.Wind suggested. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • None of those deletions is relevant. They were deletions of an article, not a redirect. Deletion of an article is by no means an indication that a redirect is inappropriate. ÷seresin 20:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two possibilities for this and other similar internet meme redirects:
    1. If there are reliable sources attesting to this meme, then redirect to List of Internet phenomena and add it to that list.
    2. If no reliable sources for this meme exist, delete.
Either way, Internet meme is not an appropriate target, since that article provides an overview of the concept of internet memes, rather than a list of them. –Grondemar 03:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Your argument is invalid

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 deleted. If this meme were notable/verifiable enough to be listed on the Internet meme article, then consensus is that it certainly would be a valid redirect. However, it is not, and keeping the redirect would be unnecessarily misleading.--Aervanath (talk) 15:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - appears nowhere in the target article and makes no sense without the appropriate context. I don't think retargeting to Argument#Validity is a viable option here. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Not in the target. Confusing, misleading, etc. Unless it's notable enough for it's own article (which is very unlikely), delete. I imagine it will be searched for in the context of the meme, (probably looking for a whole article on it) so the mentioned retarget would be sort of irrelevant, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not advocating delete anymore...I'm leaning more towards keep per my thing here (won't copy/paste it; argument's too long). Just ignore my above delete !vote, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Not in the target article" is not a reason for deletion. Redirects are navigational aids; if a user searches this term, the most useful thing we can do is redirect him here. Since this is a plausible search term, there is zero reason to delete it. ÷seresin 23:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is a reason if there is no reasonable context for the redirect. A person searching for a particular term is expecting to see an occurrence of it in the page(s) turned up by the search, and this turns up nothing. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • And they're going to come to this page and go "Oh, Your argument is invalid is an internet meme." We may not have any information on this specific meme at the page, but redirecting the user here is entirely more useful than a redlink. ÷seresin 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • And they'll also ask "what the does this have to do with logic or arguments?" More people know about mathematical logic than an obscure internet meme... obscure enough not to have its own article. Again, the context is lacking in the target for the current redirect to make sense to most Wikipedia readers. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no context due to no mention in the article. Had there been some nominal mention, it might have been worth keeping. A redirect to an article that doesn't mention it at all is pointless, if not potentially confusing (this would be more logically pointed toward argument or syllogism, but as written, it is a highly unlikely search item. B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify. In the two complete months this has existed (January and February) this had 84 and 64 hits respectively, meaning that this is not an unlikely search term. The dab page should lead with "Your argument is invalid is an internet meme. It can also mean:" and then list articles such as Syllogism and Ignoratio elenchi, Informal fallacy, Validity (which is where the article about validity in logic is) and Deductive fallacy. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator and per Seresin. It's a relatively common Internet meme and redirects are free, so I see no reason to delete it. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cheap, not free. Server disk space costs dollars, after all! Your argument is therefore... well, you get it. Jafeluv (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, "deleting" a page on Wikipedia merely hides the page from public view and the "deleted" page continues to use disk space as before, while the deletion also creates an additional revision in the database, which does use a little extra disk space. Overall, deleting a page on Wikipedia slightly increases the amount of disk space used. Deletion is cheap, not free. Your argument is therefore :-) 85.94.175.61 (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, touché! Jafeluv (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a very natural search term for anyone wanting information about "internet memes". (Why was this relisted? The discussion above looks to me like a fairly substantial consensus for deletion.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • My interpretation so far is that there is indeed a general suggestion to delete, but points about the article potentially having valid targets that could be targetted via disambiguaton have not been fully addressed. Additionally, there are points to discuss over whether this is indeed a good search term in the case of a "Hmm I wonder what this term means" --> "Oh its an internet meme" vs "Well, who would search this, and what would they really learn from doing so?". I saw no harm in relisting to allow a lengthier discussion, and it seemed like a better option than stifling potential additional comment by ending it on the 7 day date. Another admin is free to close if they believe at any point that a full consensus has been reached. --Taelus (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the explanation: that makes sense. However I find "Hmm I wonder what this term means" --> "Oh its an internet meme" a good reason for deleting, not for keeping, since someone thinking "Hmm I wonder what this term means" is at least as likely to have come across the expression in other contexts other than as an "internet meme". Is it helpful for someone who has come across the expression in connection with logic to be redirected to "internet meme"? Conceivably some people might be helped by the redirect, but others might well be confused. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is why I suggested the link to Internet meme should be on the first line of a disambiguation page, which can give the one-sentence context needed, rather than a redirect which can't. Targeting a dab page also allows people to find out why an argument might be invalid. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: Relisted to generate more discussion about whether or not creating a disambiguation page is a fitting compromise. Cunard (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine, although I doubt anybody will be searching this phrase needing to be sent to any article about logic. ÷seresin 07:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see two possibilities for this and other similar internet meme redirects:
    1. If there are reliable sources attesting to this meme, then redirect to List of Internet phenomena and add it to that list.
    2. If no reliable sources for this meme exist, delete.
Either way, Internet meme is not an appropriate target, since that article provides an overview of the concept of internet memes, rather than a list of them. Also, I don't think "Your argument is invalid" is a likely search term for someone looking for information about valid arguments, so I don't think a WP:DAB page is needed. –Grondemar 03:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per Thryduulf. No loss of information, and infinitely more educational than just a redirect. — Scientizzle 14:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

They think It's All Acoustic... It Is Now

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. Ruslik_Zero 13:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too obscure —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not a useful alternative capitalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect from alternative capitalisation. This happens more often than one usually thinks. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because of the way the MediaWiki search and page title matching works, redirects from alternative capitalisations are only required for internal links. For this reason we only need to keep redirects from likely alternative capitalisations, which I do not believe this is as only the second of the eight words ("think") is lowercase - TtIAA...IIN. Ttiaa...iin, TTiAA...iiN and Ttiaa...IiN are examples of what I would regard as likely in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - And please, PLEASE, people, stop nominating these redirects. What does it achieve (non-rhetorical)? Is it harmful in ANY way? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't see much chance of someone capitalising all of the other words properly but missing this one. Nyttend (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The River Sessions(live album)

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed dab —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Best Of Banaroo (Banaroo album)

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 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 19:37, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. If (almost) all of their other albums required disambiguation then I could see the value in this, but as only a couple do I don't think it is needed. However, the page was moved from this title today, so I think we should keep it around for a short time (2-3 months) to avoid breaking incoming links and then see how much if any traffic it still gets. Thryduulf (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is it necessary? No... Is it confusing? No... This is a case in which we would be deleting for the sake of deleting. Should we go out of our way to create this with redundant-looking disambiguation? Of course not... but now that it's here (especially in light of Thryduulf's comment), deletion does not offer any positive benefit, which it is conceivable for a person to look for it with a disambiguated title. Now that we have it, it's not worth the effort to delete it. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per User:147.70.242.54's eloquent argument above. –Grondemar 03:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cat:SVGs for cleanup

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While pages starting with the prefix CAT: are in a valid pseudo-namespace dedicated to shortcuts to pages in the Category namespace, the prefix Cat: (note the capitalization) does not denote any pseudo-namespace. More importantly, neither one of these cross-namespace redirects is a shortcut (and the second one is improperly capitalized), and their existence saves only 5 characters from titles that are 20–30 characters long. Delete both. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ten Years Older – solo EP

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. Ruslik_Zero 13:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - I have redirected the target article to Jarrod Gorbel as the album was clearly not notable on its own; I have fixed the resulting double redirect and adjusted the heading to this nomination accordingly. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - redirect is improperly named and improperly disambiguated (even if "solo EP" were in parentheses); target article of EP has been redirected to the act; so that's two reasons not to have this redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Raphael Hurley

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 person is not notable and any search will yield his name anyway. Ruslik_Zero 14:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged by User:Eingangskontrolle on March 20, but didn't post the nomination here. Completing the process on his/her/its behalf. It appears that nom is objecting to the redirect because of the nominal mention of Mr. Hurley in the target page. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right, it does not redirect to another name of the same person, like Rafael Hurley or something like Hurley Brothers, but to a list of names. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Redirects from lowercase feline shortcuts

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. Yay efficiency! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the prefix CAT: serves as a generally-valid pseudo-namespace for shortcuts to pages in the Category namespace, the same is not true of the lowercase Cat:. More importantly, a lowercase Cat:XYZ or Cat:xyz cross-namespace shortcut is rendered unnecessary by the existence of a properly-capitalized Cat:XYZ shortcut. For example, Cat:ABL and Cat:abl do not exist, but any search for them will lead to Category:Administrative backlog via the valid redirect CAT:ABL. For each of the redirects included in this nomination, a capitalized variant exists or can be created to handle any searches (see CAT:WARR, CAT:WP, CAT:B, CAT:CAT, CAT:CSD, CAT:HM). Delete all. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep CAT:csd (neutral on the rest) as I have just come to this discussion by typing that into the Wikipedia search engine. I'd also like to encourage the "CAT" pseudo-namespace to be used more often as a helpful shortcut. ThemFromSpace 04:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    CAT:CSD would have taken you to the correct page regardless of which capitalization (Cat:csd or CAT:csd, a red link) you had chosen. I agree with you, though, about the utility and potential of the CAT: shortcut prefix. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see the point of this nomination now. Sure, delete as redundant to the preexisting upper case shortcuts. ThemFromSpace 04:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nom rationale makes sense to me. — Scientizzle 18:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As long as we're keeping CAT:CSD, which cat:csd is supposed to bring you to. Gary King (talk) 19:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bob Hale (Houston Association of REALTORS®)

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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bob Hale (Houston Association of REALTORS®) → Bob Hale (businessman) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Highly unlikely search term –– Jezhotwells (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Rep07 (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as improper disambiguation redirecting to a WP:COATRACK article now under {{prod}}. The target is essentially an advert for the Houston Association of Realtors. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Steamroller Assault (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unlikely search term, especially inappropriate with the "®" symbol attached. –Grondemar 03:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • note' the proposed deletion of the target has been declined by user:Steamroller Assault. I have no opinion regarding either the redirect or its target though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as improperly disambiguated and an unlikely search term, particularly with the ®. I've also nominated Bob Hale (businessman) for AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bob Hale (businessman).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:42, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as improper disambiguation. B.Wind (talk) 00:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shifting Through The Breakers (Morgan Finlay Album)

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. Since only one subject with such a name exists, disambiguation is not required. The lenth of the redirect's name makes it highly unlikely that someone might use it as a search term. Ruslik_Zero 14:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obscure redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep despite malformed disambiguation (it should be a lower case "a") - after all, it is an album/CD by Morgan Finlay. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 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_March_23&oldid=1148048004"