Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 9

March 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 9, 2010

Metapedia

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a mention from the target, since it a. had a circular link and b. pointed "Metapedia" to a now-removed section of a list. Also, Metapedia->Matapédia seems a bit of a stretch. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Metapedia to Matapedia, though... and the history of articles on Metapedia.... Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Phalangista vulpina

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 Keep as no one is now advocating deletion. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 05:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Target article does not defines the term used in the redirect. Either delete it or point to somewhere else where it is defined. Darwinius (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the 1913 Webster's dictionary (of all things) states that Phalangista vulpina is synonymous with Trichosurus vulpina[1], the common brushtail possum. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll change the article accordingly, including that information. --Darwinius (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What do I do now? Remove the tag? --Darwinius (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Neldoreth

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 as nom now advocates keeping the redirect and no one else has recommended its deletion (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 06:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Target article does not defines the term used in the redirect. Either delete it or point to somewhere else where it is defined. Darwinius (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the Doriath article explains that Neldoreth is the name of a beech forest within Doriath. I seriously doubt that a standalone article for Neldoreth is a viable option. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At least to me it seems to be only circumstantially mentioned in the article. Do you accept such things here? Sincerely, I felt defrauded while following that redirect and finding nothing on the other side. The Doriath article even contains circular references to Neldoreth. If the subject isn't defined in teh target, the redirect shall be deleted. --Darwinius (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep viable search term, mentioned many times in the article, with information defining what it is. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an excellent use of a redirect, pointing a highly plausible search term to the place where all the available information on the term in Wikipedia is gathered. "Neldoreth" is mentioned and defined early in the article, one can hardly ask for more. If Darwinius thinks there should be more information on Neldoreth he is free to add it, or to ask for it on Talk:Doriath, my view (as a long-term fan of the Silmarillion) is that that would be an excessive level of detail for Wikipedia on this topic. DES (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, what is clear now, wasn't that clear when I made this request, as the place were the term was defined wasn't really that obvious. Thank you for your answers to my doubt about this redirect, I now accept it as necessary and good, and retract my request for deletion. Good evening for you all, and thank you again for your help. --Darwinius (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

KBNP (FM)

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KBNP is an AM station; no evidence of any FM station using this particular call sign. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there's no evidence of a KBNP (FM), KBNP-FM, or KBNP-AM/FM anywhere that I can find. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

We Like Folk... Who Cares... Destroy Us and Don't Get Bent Out Of Shape.

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. JohnCD (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We Like Folk... Who Cares... Destroy Us and Don't Get Bent Out Of Shape. → Beck (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. Doesn't appear in target article or template of Beck's releases. Sole occurrences on the net are in an article for a Beck song purportedly on a version of this album and a Wikipedia mirror. Removing the terminal period doesn't change Google search results. I am also adding the "dotless" version, We Like Folk... Who Cares... Destroy Us and Don't Get Bent Out Of Shape, to this nomination with the same justification. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Followup: this is the title of a early bootleg/"unreleased" cassette recording that clearly comes nowhere close to Wikipedia inclusion guidelines (again, zero online coverage, according to Google search). I have removed the reference to the tape in the one Wikipedia article that mentioned We Like Folk... Who Cares... Destroy Us and Don't Get Bent Out Of Shape by name without explaining that it was a bootleg. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • this seems to indicate that the title of the redirect is actually the titles of two bootleg releases, We Like Folk... Who Cares... Destroy Us and Don't Get Bent Out of Shape with two very different song lineups. On this basis, I'm tagging the redirect for speedy deletion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy declined this doesn't really fit R3 IMO, let RfD settle it. DES (talk) 23:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, but only because the speedy delete was declined. Ironically, had this not been a redirect to Beck, this would have been speedily deleted for a number of reasons. This was a typographical error linking titles to two Beck bootlegs - and the individual titles would have been quickly gone, too. B.Wind (talk) 07:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete – not mentioned in the article it redirects too. December21st2012Freak Talk to me at 17:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

I am error

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. General consensus here seems to be that, while broadly relevant to the target, the lack of sourceable information on this phrase in the article makes the redirect not helpful. ~ mazca talk 08:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target article. I understand the significance, it is the name of a glitch which occurs in the game, but it is not really notable enough to recieve a mention, thus having a navigational aid pointing you there to try find out about it just seems misleading. Taelus (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The title may not be as you prefer/ But I find not it lends any confusion/ The thing should stand, it will not make me err/ Delete it if it causes you contusion.
Oh dear me. I think I made an iamb error. Si Trew (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Over 100 hits each month since October shows this is a high traffic redirect. The nomination says that the target is relevant to the phrase (I personally have no idea), so I don't see a reason for deletion or retargetting. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant in that it is a line spoken in a game which had a minor internet meme about it. However, my issue with the redirect is that there is no information in the target. Whilst it is relevant, so would be the redirect "Can't let you do that starfox" --> "Starfox", and I am unsure we want to be encouraging this sort of thing. --Taelus (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would seem to me that if it is indeed something significant that is unique to (or identified with) this game, there would be some (at least nominal) mention of it in the target article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is where the redirect falls down, significance. I must admit I looked around a bit into the topic after noting the redirect, and it seems even the games fans are torn between whether the character who said it just happened to be called "Error", or whether it was a glitch. All in all, quirky, but not really notable, falls under trivia. --Taelus (talk) 19:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(My nomination here could have been more clear, now I have used to word significance with 2 different meanings, but I think my point can be understood from my example.) --Taelus (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it seems the reason for keeping is that this specific "error" or "glitch" is notable within this particular game. Yet the words "error" and "glitch" are missing from the target article. Without a mention/explanation of the term, there is nothing to indicate why the redirect is targeted the way it currently is. One of the abovementioned justifications for keeping refers to a "minor Internet" meme - how minor is "too minor" for inclusion of a redirect? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is nothing in the target to give this redirect any context. It makes no sense to have a redirect to an article that makes no attempt to demonstrate a connection with the term. B.Wind (talk) 14:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per B.Wind. The target doesn't even mention "I am error." and there is no indication that this is a notable phrase for the game, so it is thus a useless redirect. Cunard (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as people use it it cannot be useless. And this redirect existing can provide impetus for expansion of the article when one gets redirected there and notices that something is missing. -- Ϫ 06:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article cannot, and should not, be expanded to discuss "I am error" unless reliable sources discuss this phrase. A Google News Archive search returns no substantial results, save for this article from The Guardian which only mentions the phrase in passing: This passing mention provides no context for how the phrase is notable and thus cannot be used in the target. Leaving the redirect to encourage insertion of original research into the target should be discouraged. Cunard (talk) 07:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_March_9&oldid=1138577383"