Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 21, 2008

Wikipedia:AFDCLOSE → Wikipedia:WikiProject AfD closing[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete R1. Lenticel (talk) 03:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unused redirect for a project that is inactive and subject for MfD seen here nominated by me. — MaggotSyn 12:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Defer to MfD. If the target is deleted, this is subject to speedy deletion under criterion R1 (deleted target). If it isn't, I see no reason to delete the shortcut independently of the WikiProject (and the nominator hasn't provided one). Basically, there's nothing that RfD needs to do here. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I suggest a retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page? That's the instructions on how to close an AFD... --UsaSatsui (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the target is deleted, retarget to Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_Deletion_page per UsaSatsui. How do you know it's unused? Half the shortcuts on wikipedia aren't linked to from any other pages, but get typed in the search box by loads of people.--Serviam (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yield to MfD -- Ned Scott 08:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was assuming it wasn't used since not many editors know of the project. I hadn't thought about just retargeting, but it sounds like a far better solution. My only intention for nominating it was to get rid of anything pertaining to this project (created by me no less). Closing this out and retargeting now is something I wouldn't be adverse to either. Cheers. — MaggotSyn 12:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kevin Gnapoor (Mean Girls) → Mean Girls[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. 147.70.242.40 sums it up well. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gnapoor's name is nowhere to be found in the target. Citing the same justification (name not in target article), I add Niamh Wilson → Runaway (TV series) for further consideration. B.Wind (talk) 05:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Kevin Gnapoor seems to be a character in the film played by Rajiv Surendra.[1] I thought about it for a bit and decided that anyone looking up the character might as well find the film article even if he's currently not mentioned in there. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree with you if the redirect is Kevin Gnapoor without the disambiguation, but the addition of (Mean Girls) makes it most unlikely as a search term. In the case of Niamh Wilson, the reasoning seems sound (and apt) to me, and I now can't see why it shouldn't be kept. B.Wind (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The first one would be a most unlikely search item with the disambiguation, but without the mentioning of the name in Mean Girls, there is no context for the redirect. Should there be more than a trivial mention of Niamh Wilson in the Runaway (TV series) article, I'd be urging to keep the second redirect, but, alas, no such luck there. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 19:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Cottage Chicken → Chicken Cottage[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect has potential to be very confusing. While we regularly keep redirects with letter transposition, this seems a bit afield in that line of reasoning for keeping this redirect. B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - very confusing, and a google search suggests this confusion is non-existent. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jason Hice → Lists of authors[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting one here. Target is a list article in which every entry is a list. Needless to say, Mr. Hice's name is nowhere to be found on the target. The challenge is to find an appropriate target for this redirect or to delete it unless someone wishes to write a worthwhile article here. B.Wind (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Nothing to suggest who this guy is and this redirect connects to non of his works to clarify this. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fonejacker - Doovde → Fonejacker[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malformed redirect as awkward format of title compromises its usefulness (Doovde and Doovdé both redirect to the target article as the protagonist's last name). B.Wind (talk) 04:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Walking Tall: Payback → Walking Tall[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. IMDB confirms a 2007 film by that name. This is the ideal case for a redlink to encourage article creation vs. sending people to a place the content is not discussed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect's name is that of the only Walking Tall movie (of a total of six) that does not have a standalone article. Walking Tall: Payback is the direct-to-DVD sequel of the 2004 version of Walking Tall (its followup, Walking Tall: Final Chapter has its own article despite its also being direct-to-DVD). While the redirect's title appears in the target, a redlink would be better in this case until/unless Payback gets its own article, or until there is a standalone, omnibus, article on the Walking Tall movies (or similar title). B.Wind (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to 'Walking Tall (2004 film)' - The series template suggests it to be an 2007 sequel to the remake series started in 2004. No special reason to redirect to the 1970s film. JaakobouChalk Talk 07:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

K.A.C.C. Military Fuels → San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto)[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a set of Grand Theft Auto-related redirects that were created by a now-banned editor. While most of his creations seem to be valid redirects, the titles of four of them are nowhere to be found in their targets. In the case of the fifth redirect, parts of the compound name of the redirect can be found, but not the entire phrase. The other for "nominees for discussion":

B.Wind (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_21&oldid=1145634471"