Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 5, 2008

Fuck.org → Shock site[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. Cenarium Talk 13:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this one to the parade as there is no mention of the site in the target article, unlike two years ago, when a similar nomination resulted in a "keep" because it was included. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to fuck. Most likely target. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Prior RfD is at 8 October 2006. -- Suntag (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the article shock site does not mention fuck.org, then fuck.org should not redirect there. Neither should fuck.org redirect to fuck if fuck does not mention fuck.org. Mike R (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, same reasoning as below (and Mike R above). The site does not appear notable enough to justify a redirect. Terraxos (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Nimp.org → Shock site[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. The question isn't whether it should be considered a shock site but whether it is sufficiently notable to be mentioned somewhere which might then warrant a redirect.Tikiwont (talk) 10:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirects to a page that displays nothing about Nimp.org --frogger3140 (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nimp.org IS a shock site and a well known one, duh   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I have found no reliable sources stating that this place if well known, one person, or user, stating himself that he knows this site is well known would be OR, and therefore cannot be accepted.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 23:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a further note, after doing a bit more research, many forums/wikipedia-like sites classified this as a virus-type site, in that it effected your browser and caused various programs associated with it to open and the like. I realize none of these are reliable, but as the term of shock site stands on WP, this site would not appear to fall under the meaning of pornographic in nature.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 23:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Nimp seems to be the same thing as Nimp.org. Nimp.org seems to have some negative history on Wikipedia. The page history and a google search indicates that Nimp.org is the main Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA) Last Measure mirror. urbandictionary.com says nimp.org "itself is merely a way to make your web browser jump around on your screen, and open all programs attached to it. It can be annoying, but it is easy to stop on Mozilla Firefox. Microsoft Internet Explorer is very vulnerable to this "attack"". "Shock site" doesn't seem to fit. Pharming and phishing come to mind. It might be a useful redirect since if a reader were affected by nimp.org and wanted to read up on the topic, but it should be redirected to what ever Wikipedia article discusses the features of nimp.org. Suntag (talk) 04:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes I know it's a shock site. But if the article shock site does not mention nimp.org, then nimp.org should not redirect there. Mike R (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reality check That much-derided but sometimes useful resource "Original Research" tells me that going to nimp.org gives you a detailed view of a human anus doing something unusual (or did the one and only time I tried), so it does accord with my notion of "shock site". It also plays silly buggers with your browser, as stated above by urbandictionary via Suntag. If anyone using the World's Favorite Operating System wants to verify my account, then I suggest doing so with some alternative to MSIE, and, when the nonsense starts, avoiding any offer to close or end this or that, instead pressing Alt-F4. (It may be better to use some alternative to Windows, if you have one.) ¶ I'm neutral (for now) on the question of what to do with the redirect. -- Hoary (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If Nimp.org is mentioned on the shock site page, then we shouldn't have this redirect, as it doesn't tell a user anything about it. The site doesn't appear particularly notable, so I don't think a redirect is needed. Terraxos (talk) 16:07, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I'm pretty sure Terraxos meant to say "If Nimp.org is not mentioned…" Mike R (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think this redirect needs to be kept till someone makes a small stub on that website only because that site is being used by certain trolls in edit summaries and we an not actually class it as a shock site since it really doesn't contain and "disgusting images" but is rather a type of trojan which forces your browser to open multiple tabs at once and sometimes over 100 tabs which can only be shut down through the taskmanager and it mainly affects windows friendly browser like Internet Explorer...--Cometstyles 08:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Then why not include a blurb on nimp.org in the main shock site article? Then it would make sense to have the redirect. Mike R (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - small blurb added ....--Cometstyles 02:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People are saying they can't see the shock of it, but that is because they are not going in the right way, I could give a link to show you it is a shocksite if I am approved to do so. (Please notify me on my talk page if the link is kosher to post here.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klichka (talk • contribs) 16:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Sorry Klichka, we don't actually need to see nimp.org ourselves...that would be original research. In fact, it doesn't matter whether you can give us a link to the website or not. In order to justify a redirect, it must be mentioned in the target article, and it won't be added to the target article without verifiable facts from reliable sources. If that happens, I will most likely change my !vote.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tubgirl → Shock site[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy close We just had an RFD on this last week, and it closed as a keep. Too soon. Plus, there's a mention of tubgirl on the target page now, so the nominator's point is moot. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 18:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect that goes to a page that formerly has information about Tubgirl. Now it is removed. frogger3140 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

im not a fan of tubgirl - but in terms of an encyclopedic entry, you can hardly not have it as a redirect. its a very well known and commonly talked about shock site —Preceding unsigned comment added by MedRevise (talk • contribs) 23:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:SOURCEITORDROPIT → Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. The redirect is unnecessary as there are more direct (shorter) shortcuts used for that policy's section. Its connotation of hostility might also outweigh its possible helpful use. Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Suntag at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_3#Wikipedia:PROVEIT_.E2.86.92_Wikipedia:Verifiability.23Burden_of_evidence. It does not seem right to give volunteers an ultimatum. If some believes something should be kept, they can make that argument without also being expected to have to be the ones to improve the article. Some volunteers are more skillful arguers, others more skillful article creators. If it is okay for those demanding deletion to not make any show of actual article improvement or source searching, than it seems lopsided, hypocritical, and unfair to expect something more from those simply arguing to keep, especially when many times those arguing to keep are in fact also doing what they can to improve the articles under discussion. AfDs should be a real discussion, i.e. "Hey, I couldn't find any sources so I'm not sure the article should be kept." "Well, I'm not sure where you looked, but if you check Google books, you should find some hits." "Okay, let me see what I can find.... Well, maybe some of these might work." And NOT "nnotable." "See this Google books results." "I don't want to go through the results and/or cannot notice the abovious hits, so SOURCEITORDROPIT". And yes, to be honest, I am increasingly thinking that maybe even on the flip side SOFIXIT also comes off too strong. Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: as a good summary of "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". I don't think it's appropriate to censor, and I'm concerned with Le Grand's repeated efforts to remove essays or redirects that make points he disagrees with. We should assess incivility in discussions based on the actual conduct of the editors, rather than engaging in blanket censorship of certain terminology. Randomran (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At the same time, we should consider a balance of heat and light. While deleting a longstanding essay about a common term or a simple redirect that accurately explains the target means we're losing utility to avoid offense, what utility does this redirect serve? It's not a shortcut, it's not an accurate description of the target section...it's just a snappish message to anyone arguing for inclusion. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arguably, it has a time and a place. Just as someone might say "I'm adding information that Barack Obama is a Muslim", and in a dispute, someone says "if you're going to add that, you're going to need to WP:PROVEIT".... There might be a time when someone says "Listen, Barack Obama is a Muslim and there are tons of reliable sources that say so, see here", and the appropriate response is "WP:SOURCEITORDROPIT" -- essentially asking them to put their money where their mouth is. The tone is not meant to be antagonistic, but to ask them to discharge their burden of evidence. If this shortcut is gone, it wouldn't stop anyone from saying "WP:PROVEIT or let it go", let alone "meet your WP:BURDEN of verifiability, or remove the statement". Nor would these be examples of "snappish" or incivil comments. Is there any part of that which you would agree with? Randomran (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    People can just say it when it has a time and a place. It isn't necessary to encourage direct speech in this way, and we do have a "prove it" redirect. Direct speech is a important weapon in an arsenal of argumentation, but Wikipedia discussions should not be tacitly encouraged to become swordfights in the streets when there are bloodless ways to resolve things. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I respectfully disagree. I don't think a shortcut encourages incivility. I trust editors to make fair judgment, and for the community to address individual bad behavior rather than engaging in censorship. That said, how would you feel about WP:SOURCEITORREMOVEIT, let alone WP:SOURCEIT? I believe these are more clear than WP:PROVEIT in certain circumstances, to explain that "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed". Randomran (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Disposing of a redirect is not censorship; one cannot censor a tool. But by leaving a tool in plain sight, you encourage its use. Shortcuts allow a sort of diffuse attribution of speech: by linking WP:PROVEIT, you're implicitly saying that "Prove it!" is part of policy. While "prove it" is in all contexts reasonable, "source it or drop it" is not. We should not allow this to be attributed to the vague speaker, but instead only allow it to be said when the speaker is willing to stand by it for himself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that this encourages something that shouldn't be encouraged. That said, would you feel the same way about WP:SOURCEITORREMOVE IT or WP:SOURCEIT, as a quick shortcut to explain "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed"? Sometimes WP:PROVEIT is vague: prove what, how? Randomran (talk) 02:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about WP:RAWR! Feed the source monster? Protonk (talk) 02:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I might prefer WP:NUMNUMNUMGIMMESOURCES. Randomran (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:ITANNOYSME is not a valid reason for deletion. --Allen3 talk 22:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We delete, archive, or otherwise obsolete obnoxious things from project space all the time. We do not censor our encyclopedia because someone finds some content offensive, but we should and frequently do dispose of project-space tools that generate more offense than utility. A projectspace page of any sort that generates more heat than light should be examined carefully, and disposed of if necessary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the fact that the short cut has been used in two AfDs in recent weeks means that at least two editors found it a useful redirect. Some people are offended by bluntness; others are offended by wordy filibusters. WP:NPOV does not cover redirects or short cuts (such as WP:GRAPES). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the fact that two people used it means it should be kept, then all the articles deleted for which multiple editors contributed should also be kept, because obviously at least that many editors find them useful. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not necessarily; "It's used" is a matter for discussion when considering whether a tool (projectspace or redirects) should be deleted, whereas we explicitly don't keep articles just because they're popular. That said, the argument is that this shouldn't be available for use, not that it isn't used. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The only thing that really matters is accuracy; everything else is subordinate to that one overarching goal. Everything that aides us in approaching that goal is valid and important; and —where applicable— a request to source it or drop the matter is a fully qualified argument. Also, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT appears to be at play here once again. user:Everyme 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I do agree that everything is subordinate to accuracy, politeness and accuracy are not incompatible goals. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Useless and antagonistic. This is not in any sense a shortcut, and while you're never going to find a bigger fan of being pithy and direct, this crosses a line. If you want to say "Source it or drop it," say it, but stand by it yourself, instead of using a snarky redirect. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a shortcut. Not widely used. Antagonistic (in a way the SOFIXIT and PROVEIT are not). While PROVEIT will probably be kept, I don't think that all of the consensus judged there applies here. The "SOXFIXIT" version would be "WP:SOGOFIXITYOURSELFINSTEADOFDELETING" (God, I hope that is a red link). Protonk (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *idly whistles* - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SOURCEITORDROPIT is not a shortcut listed at Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, so arguments directed towards keep as a shortcut do not seem applicable. SOURCEITORDROPIT should be evaluated for its value as a redirect only. In addition to being redundant of several redirects already serving such redirect purpose, it is unlikely that anyone searching for Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence will type in SOURCEITORDROPIT. Other things that come to mind are rudeness and taunting and fostering incivility. We're here to participate in a respectful and civil way, not to antagonize others. Wikipedia:Civility requests a reasonable degree of civility towards others and SOURCEITORDROPIT does not work towards that request. Suntag (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stong Keep A beautiful summery of the target page that is easy to remember.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that it is used by those who should source things themselves. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it is used by those who correctly point out that it is for those who seek to have content kept to provide sources. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it is used dishonestly by those who are unwilling to help find sources and improve the articles under discussion and who usually turn a blind eye anyway to sources when they are presented, which is why those who get a "sourceitordropit" message don't feel like replying to those particular editors who use this. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, relevant, appropriate, and a valid point that the nominator would do well to remember in his AFD arguments. Stifle (talk) 21:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is irrelevant and inappropriate and adds nothing to our project. No editor could reaosnably think this is valid. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I totally disagree, and clearly so do the many others who recommend keeping this redirect. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A lot more editors, i.e. those busy creating and working on articles that do not dwell on AfDs, believe certain articles should be kept than the handful of the same half dozen in every AfD who uses these kinds of useless redirects. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to WP:PROVEITORDIE. --EEMIV (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I had closed this ad delete based on what I considered very substantial arguments by Protonk and The Man in Black, but i take note on my talk page that the closure wording may not have really reflect this. I've undone the close now; time wasn't up anyways.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - This and all others like it per WP:BITE. I realise that many commenting here think that this is cute or funny, but the target of your post may not (and likely will not). - jc37 00:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlike WP:PROVEIT (which is actually short, like a shortcut is supposed to be, and conveys a reasonable, non-offensive message), this is rather long and immediately sets a highly antagonistic tone in a discussion. As jc37 notes, while this may seem "cute or funny" at first glance, it's unlikely that it would be interpreted in that way by someone who receives "SOURCE IT OR DROP IT" as an all-caps ultimatum. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessarily hostile in tone, and therefore unhelpful to the community as it will promote escalation of conflicts rather than civil discussion. --erachima talk 05:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shit bag → Ostomy pouching system[edit]

The result of the debate was Converted to a Disambiguation page. Lenticel (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term (2nd nomination because no consensus was reached) frogger3140 (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It was closed as no consensus, so it may not be too early to relist it again to get a consensus. Suntag (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Unlikely search term? shows it may be being used. google Shit bag Ostomy pouching system shows that the redirect may be to support the "Urban Dictionary: shit bag" and that shit bag is not a term associated with Ostomy pouching system other than at Urban Dictionary. The google search seems to show that shit bag is not a likely search term for a layman who doesn't know the proper name of Ostomy pouching system. Google shit bag shows that shit bag means flaming bag of shit put on a door step as a joke, dog poo bags, and something akin to dirtbag. In any event, it is not a likely search term for ostomy pouching system.Suntag (talk) 07:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those who frequently type in that term are most likely young people curious to see whether Wikipedia really has an article on everything, and what it says. Since I'm not a native speaker, I'll take your word for it that the slang term is not used to refer to the pouch in an ostomy pouching system. So we could either leave the redirect in place for the curious and redirect them to a valid if not properly related article, or we delete it. Both are valid alternatives imho. I'd leave it in place because I consider it relatively harmless and a somewhat plausible redirect in case someone is actually interested in what info there is about the term, but there's also the valid point of us having to avoid the creation of new facts (the redirect could be seen as giving legitimacy to the connection). Either way. user:Everyme 10:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree to an extent with the point someone made in the last, very recent RfD, that it's "a likely search term for a layman who doesn't know the proper name." Or we could actually change the redirect to Dirtbag, which seems just as plausible. user:Everyme 10:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my reasoning above. Suntag (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reading Everyme's comments, it may be likely that someone would enter shit bag in the search box since it is a somewhat common term. Allen3 has a good point that shit bag could mean several things, probably depending on when and where you grew up. I have no objection to using shit bag for a disambiguation page, which can include a link to Dirtbag. Using shit bag as a disambiguation page can be done even if the redirect is deleted. Since there was a very recent RfD on this very redirect, we probably should wait for this RfD to close before modifying the page. Suntag (talk) 05:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambiguation page. While there is technically a link between "shit bag" and "Ostomy pouching system", the redirect is confusing because it bypasses more common usages as a personal insult or describing a container filled with manure or other fecal material. A disambiguation page similar to Dirtbag would be able to include the more common usages and still include a link to the medical device. --Allen3 talk 23:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambiguation page per Allen3 is the most reasonable. People enter the search, and it has a variety of meaning -> dab. user:Everyme 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is or disambig. Either is fine with me. -- Ned Scott 03:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless someone can actually demonstrate that this redirect is helpful, or that a disambiguation page could be made here. It seems to me that it's just an insulting term, and not even a particularly common one; the link between 'shit bag' and 'ostomy punching system' is not exactly strong. If this redirect only exists so 'shit bag' redirects somewhere, the better solution would be to delete it and protect it from re-creation. Terraxos (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Those in the American military can remind you that this is not exactly a likely search term for a colostomy bag. Protonk (talk) 03:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Change to disambiguation page If there's more than one thing that it means and it is a common term, (It's definately a valid sounding term for a colostomy bag.) Then make it a disambiguation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klichka (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Moral weakness → Homosexuality[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy delete by Jon513, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this really need discussion?  – iridescent 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was something I learnt when reading either the original ICD-1 or the DSM-1, and found it very interesting as a view of how classification and understanding has changed. Just as GRID is mentioned, this seemed to be relevantMedRevise (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But retargeting as suggested would create a double redirect, with Principles redirecting to Value (personal and cultural), an article that does not contain a single use of the word "weakness". 147.70.242.40 (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a violation of NPOV. I strongly endorse delete over redirect because it is important to remove the history in this case, as an unproductive instance of WP:NOT. If someone wanted to recreate it based on what Wikipedia *is*, they should do that in a way that's completely divorced from the current redirect. Randomran (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete history and speedy redirect - Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity may be speedy acted on. Using a redirect to express a personal opinion about Homosexuality is not appropriate. Redirect target at closing admin's discretion. Google seems to indicate that moral clarity or moral relativism would be good choices. Suntag (talk) 07:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, Oversight or Delete History and Lvl 4 Warn Creator - Thats a disgrace.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 11:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, tell us how you really feel about it... --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under G10 criteria. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Re-opened after non-admin closed as delete. I did tag the redirect for speedy deletion under G10, however. --UsaSatsui (talk) 09:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can i point out here that I don't think homosexuality is moral weakness, that its not my opinion or personal viewpoint. However, you can't deny that it was once in various medical texts as a moral 'defect' or condition, nor that thus it is something that someone could conveivably search for? I feel my punishment here is a little unfair. Please remove my warning frogger; the page was not intended to be disparaging, merely based on factual evidence of how homosexuality was once percieved. As I said earlier, calling HIV GRID (Gay Related Immune Disorder) seems disparaging, it was once how the disease was termed. MedRevise (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
  • And a reply to my "this is unfair" complaint? MedRevise (talk) 16:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marker (2008 film) → Pistol Whipped[edit]

The result of the debate was Keep Marker (film) and Marker (2008 film) as redirects from alternate title, delete Marker (2005 film) as incorrect. Non-admin closure. --erachima talk 05:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the case of a redirect in search of a target. This was created when another redirect (Marker (2005 film), now empty and tagged for speedy deletion) was moved, but even its predecessor appears to be the result of yet another move (from Marker (film)). The word "marker" appears nowhere in the current article, thus making no apparent connection between the word and the film. Because Marker (film) is now a double redirect, I also nominate Marker (film) → Marker (2005 film) for deletion as well. Those who are easily amused should look at the history of Marker (2005 film) as not one character of actual written article has been seen along the way (except for redirects). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 18:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The empty one, (Marker (2005 film), was blanked today. It was a perfectly good redirect for the past nine months. So instead of speedy deleting it as empty, I've restored the redirect from before it was blanked. Now, whether it's a valid redirect is a different issue, and if someone feels that it is not, they can bring it here. But speedy deletion was not the right path for it. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the update, TexasAndroid. Since the speedy delete has been declined, I hereby add Marker (2005 film) → Pistol Whipped to the nominations, not only for the lack of mention of "Marker" as a title in the target article, but also because the target article is about a 2008 film (and not 2005). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Marker was the name used for Pistol Whipped before it was renamed Pistol Whipped.[1]. The redirects seem useful. Suntag (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for Marker (film) and Marker (2008 film); while they are somewhat unlikely search terms, it is true that this film was formerly known by that title, so someone might use them. I'm inclined to delete Marker (2005 film) though, as it's simply inaccurate, and so I can't imagine anyone searching for it. Terraxos (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Larry Kroon → Sarah Palin[edit]

The result of the debate was Retarget to Wasilla Bible Church. There is no consensus for keeping Sarah Palin as target. Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Create a stub Deleting or redirecting has a relatively transparent political motive. There is enough info and interest in the man, and relevance will only grow. It is unconscionable for there to be a Jeremiah Wright article and not a Larry Kroon article. --67.49.175.125 (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Already deleted by AfD as an article. We simply don't need a link from the name of some entirely non-notable pastor to his one famous congregant Mayalld (talk) 06:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt until the guy is notable in a non-inherited sort of way. The same should go for all the WP:COATRACK attempts by the same users. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the AfD discussion, he is not notable, and there is no reason for his name to redirect to hers. No one is going to be doing a search for Palin, and think of Kroon first... A redirect to his church would be more logical (if the church survives it's AfD discussion), otherwise, delete with great saltiness... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indef protected redirect to Wasilla, Alaska - after looking into this situation a little further, I feel as though he (as well as the church) should just redirect to the town, it seems more logical than just deleting (saves room in the logs too)... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-redirect to Wasilla, Alaska, not Sarah Palin. Or just delete altogether as was the consensus at the AFD in the first place. If someone wants info on Sarah Palin, I find it highly implausible that they'll say, "hmm, I think I'll type in one of her former, obscure pastor's names in. That should get me there". Keeper ǀ 76 16:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The church isn't even notable enough to have its own article, let alone its founding pastor. Both are several degress of separation from the notability light here. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change target to Wasilla, Alaska. His church might have been a target (but its article has also been deleted). The redirect to Palin is inappropriate. The article was deleted in an AFD discussion. Associated deletions of articles on churches were evidently controversial, and I asked for a WP:Deletion Review on Wasilla Bible Church, so that the matter could be reconsidered. An admin also restored this as a redirect (meaning the history was available). Having seen the article, it was clear to me that the subject is NN, but Wasilla Bible Church was significant enough to warrant merging some content with the article on the town (which I have done), though probably not enough to have its own article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing comment -- Now that Wasilla Bible Church has been restored, that is the most appropriate target. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create stub. There appear to be sufficient sources to put together a suitable stub that satisfies both WP:N and WP:V. Google yielded following results: "larry kroon" -wiki -wikipedia -blog, "larry kroon" (Google News). user:Everyme 00:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a stub--Nowa (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the redirect to Sarah Palin is completely inappropriate because Larry Kroon is not an alias of Palin or a member of Palin's family. Nor would redirecting it to Wasilla, Alaska be valid either. Everyme's own Google searches shows that there is no significant coverage by reliable sources on Larry Kroon to even create a stub on. Plenty of coverage about his daughter, Brittney Kroon. But she is notable only for one event. --Farix (Talk) 03:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Larry Kroon definitely doesn't deserve an article. His notability is solely through Palin. But even so, the redirect isn't justified... he isn't even that notable.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 08:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The redirect is inappropriate - he isn't even mentioned in to Sarah Palin article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he has no independant notability. Failing that, he should redirect to a his church, not Palin. Edward321 (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to his church. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to an option of either Sarah Palin or Wasilla Bible Church or David Brickner. That's where information on Larry Kroon is, and we should be as helpful to encyclopedia users as possible. EricDiesel (talk) 16:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the chgurch, if that is kept. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the church.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 06:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wasilla Bible Church - the only obviously relevant target for this redirect. Terraxos (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wasilla Bible Church. I have to concur that this is the obvious target. Gnome de plume (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Admin should do this soon. Danski14(talk) 23:10, 16 September 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_September_5&oldid=1136083834"