Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 22

February 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 22, 2012

Southern Border (disambiguation)

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 Delete,G8 by User:Rossami Lenticel (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The target of this redirect was restored, invalidating G8. Redirect restored and retargetted in keeping with the restoration rationale for the target page. Rossami (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The disambiguation page this redirect used to reference was deleted. The redirect page itself has no significant history, nor is there any obvious alternative usage for the redirect since the "Southern Border" disambiguation page is not likely to be recreated and it is hard to see any meaningful alternative page the redirect could reference. Rnickel (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The target was deleted as an expired PROD. Speedy-deleted the redirect under CSD#G8. Rossami (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Bajingo

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 18:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Scrubs character named "Bajingo" listed on List of Scrubs characters, therefore this redirect should be deleted. Neelix (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This was apparently a one-off joke in the show, but it's an unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:20, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as of now this redirect received 91 hits (including today's 23, which is normal for RfD) for the last 90 days, which is less then 1 hit/day. This is below the noise level, so, if there is indeed no such character in Scrubs, the redirect may be safely deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Gatekeeper (application)

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 Gatekeeper (disambiguation)#Computing. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and inaccurate. It's not an application with a significant user interface of its own like an anti-virus. It's just a background program or mere feature(s) of other programs. Cybercobra (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep pending the outcome of the AfD of the target page. Assuming that page is kept, this redirect is entirely reasonable. The distinction between an "application" and "software" is highly technical (and the distinction offered here is not universal). Readers could reasonably use either term when looking for this topic. The redirect is not overtly harmful or confusing to readers. Rossami (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You assert that people include parentheses in their searches? I could see "Gatekeeper application" but not "Gatekeeper (application)". --Cybercobra (talk) 00:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I quite frequently use parens in my searches. For example, when searching for an album, I will frequently write "Help (album)" (which happens to be a redirect to Help! (album)) not just Help, since it would seem to me obvious that will end me up at either a DAB or at the "wrong" topic, whereas using the parens will likely end me up either at the right topic or with the right topic being top of search results. Si Trew (talk) 17:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Rossami. --SF007 (talk) 07:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there are two other Gatekeeper applications listed under Gatekeeper (disambiguation) and I know another one which might get its article once, so per Rossami's rationale this should be either disambiguated or redirected to Gatekeeper (disambiguation). The fact that no one created this redirect since June 19, 2005‎ (initial revision of H.323 Gatekeeper article) shows that the need of this redirect is at least questionable. Another fact – that the target article lived under the redirect's name for less then 24 hours – shows that keeping it for historical reasons also doesn't make much sense. So, given the implausibility of this redirect, documented for the last 6,5 years, and lack of reasons to keep it, I choose the "delete" position. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:13, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd not seen that page. Good catch. A retarget to the disambiguation page might work but not with the current content. "Actio Gatekeeper" is a redlink and has been so since 2010 when that page was deleted as spam. (It should not be in the disambiguation list any more.) "H.323 Gatekeeper" is, I believe, a VOIP protocol - a conceptual component more than a stand-alone application or piece of software. It's a bit beyond my expertise, though. It does appear that the current target (if kept at AfD) should be added to that disambiguation page regardless of the fate of this redirect. Rossami (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Kyrie Irving1

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 deleted as implausible. Peridon (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term —Chris!c/t 02:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy-delete as the artifact of a new-user test (CSD#G2) of the pagemove process. The user who moved the page, promptly moved it back. Rossami (talk) 04:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_22&oldid=1139992382"