Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 12

November 12

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 12, 2010

Teh

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. Courcelles 00:29, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects from the very common typo "teh" that is sometimes used ironically. None of these appears particularly likely to be deliberately searched with "teh", and in the case of a typo the search function will catch it and suggest the correct spelling. Moreover, if "teh" were valuable as a typo redirect in itself, there would be many more than this number of redirects from that misspelling. There are some reasonably legitimate uses of "teh", like Teh internets, that I have not nominated, but these all appear to be perfectly unneeded. — Gavia immer (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the following: Teh Jocker, Teh POSH, Teh cock, Teh quo, Teh rei, Teh shuffel, and Teh vestibule. These appear to be particularly unlikely errant search terms involving multiple misspellings or misdirections. No comment on the rest. bd2412 T 16:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Who teh heLL R u 2 tELL me what 2 reed or how 2 spel?" – Laura Penny, More Money than Brains (2010), Chapter 4. The answer, in this case, is an encyclopedia! ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Over 9000!

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. — ξxplicit 00:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect since search term does not appear in target article. Based on non-notable Internet meme. Uncle Dick (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete alot of websites use an over-9000 milestone banner on their pages. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the extent that knowyourmeme.com is reliable about such topics, the redirect appears justified. Tijfo098 (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would have no objection to this as a title of an episode but it is not mentioned in the target and hence is confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It should be noted there are a lot of these Dragonball/Dragonball Z redirects that point to an article with no information on the character/term. Part of the problem is that certain editors have taken it upon themselves with little consensus to outright delete certain information. May not bear on the result of this particular RFD but worth noting. Redfarmer (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This might very well be the most notable meme ever created. Very likely search term that should redirect to its origin. The DominatorTalkEdits 21:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The poroblem there is that the page in question is that the page does not contain the term so people who use the redirect would not even know that it is the origin of the term. Also previous consensus is that the meme does not meet our notability standards (ie multipe not trival coverage in reliable sourcs) so any addition to the target page would likely be reverted.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 04:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I think it's a little bizarre that it doesn't meet notability criteria since there are other memes less notable than this that are listed at list of Internet phenomena. Over 9000 has been overused to the point of cliche on 4chan, Encyclopedia Dramatica etc. I think it would be reasonable to add the fact that the episode (whichever one it is; I'm not sure right now) is the origin of the Over 9000 meme. The DominatorTalkEdits 21:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whether this meme is notable is not the criteria for a redirect. Notability is for articles and their content not for redirects. If this meme is not notable enough to be mentioned in the target then the redirect would be confusing and should be deleted. If "This might very well be the most notable meme ever created." then it shouldn't be hard to find reliable sources and add it to the page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, my point is that it's more than notable enough to be mentioned in the article. It's not exactly easy finding a reliable source for any meme (especially one as generic than this), but just search "over 9000" on Google or Youtube. Anybody who has a passing familiarity with the internet could tell you that this is up there with "all your base are belong to us" and lolcats. As for reliable sources, again, it's difficult but something could probably be found (though, again, with internet memes this is next to impossible and should be approached with common sense) [1]. It was also used on Oprah. It's also mentioned in this Wikinews article. The DominatorTalkEdits 20:32, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Target does not mention the redirect text, so it's pretty useless to someone wanting to know what it means. 28bytes (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable meme. No reliable sources found in Google. -184.36.186.43 (talk) 14:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bang for your Buck

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Retarget to Bang for the buck, created since nomination as a suitable target for this redirect. --Taelus (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or retarget is a better target can be found. Too narrow to justify redirecting to a disambig page that covers many meanings beyond the meaning of "buck" implied in this expression. bd2412 T 03:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Disambiguate - a search shows several pages that, together, would form a useful disambig page; I don't see the objection to this. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Redirect {{wi|bang for the buck}}. Wikipedia is not a dictionary or phrasebook. ~ Ningauble (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - no it isn't but a disambiguation page between various articles is encyclopaedic. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:18, 13 November 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_November_12&oldid=1138577415"