Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 9, 2009

The Berwickshire High School Observer → Berwickshire High School[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt someone would search for a school newspaper, also the school paper isn't even mentioned in the school article. Tavix (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add the newspaper to the article. This is routine for non-notable school newspapers, athletic groups, and the like. Without them, people keep[ remaking the articles. DGG (talk)
  • Keep - non-trivial edit history - article was redirected last month after the article was PRODed [1]. Now points to where information about the newspaper should be included. Guest9999 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : If there's a re-direct from "The Berwickshire ... Observer" shouldn't there also be one from "Berwickshire ... Observer"? Is it standard to have re-directs from every "The" heading ? --RCEberwein | Talk 13:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Why do you still beat your wife? → Loaded question[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even think "Why do you still beat your wife?" is a loaded question. No links are pointing at this redirect. --Eivind (t) 22:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Someone trying to be funny I guess... Tavix (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Do you still beat your wife?" is a canonical loaded question (whether it is also a false dilemma is a closer question, and one that I don't imagine we need reach for the purposes of redirection), such that it is appropriate that it redirects to the latter. "Why do you still beat your wife?", though, is less pronounced a loaded question and so never prominently used as an example (only 3 Ghits), such that it is an exceedingly implausible search and without use. Joe 00:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Nom+ (Always enjoy the additional stuff one learns from the arguments here! --RCEberwein | Talk 00:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Untitled Cobra Starship Album → Cobra Starship[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete, R3 by Gwen Gale. Lenticel (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded redirect Tavix (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- only 3 Ghits of which 2 are WP -- lets not encourage more from mirrors!! --RCEberwein | Talk 00:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Back Alley Brawl → Grand Theft Auto: Vice City[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted except for those re-targeted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's implausible that any of these would be useful to someone looking for Grand Theft Auto; the only reason I can think of a user entering these as search terms is to find walkthrough information, which they won't find at Wikipedia anyway. These are also likely to confuse users searching for unrelated items. To me, and reasonable Wikipedians may disagree, having a redirect for each mission title in the game is akin to having the name of every chapter in a book redirect to its book page.

I should note that in the case that a mission name conflicted with an existing article or disambiguation page, the author added a disambiguation item for the mission name linked to the appropriate Grand Theft Auto page. If the result of this discussion is DELETE, I think these should be cleaned up.

Finally, I also recognize that there may be specific GTA missions notable enough to warrant their own pages. I don't think any of these fit that criteria. -- smurdah[citation needed] 21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, is it appropriate I put the {{rfd}} template on each of these pages? That seems excessive and potentially disruptive if the outcome is KEEP. -- smurdah[citation needed] 21:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – As per a message on the creator's talk page: the redirects setup unrealistic expectations in readers and encourage contributors to add material that will usually need to be removed. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you had a good idea not to add the {{rfd}} template to so many redirects. Instead I would mention this discussion to the creator (except he is indefinitely blocked, so perhaps this is not useful in this case) and possibly on the GTA talk page. The tag is meant to encourage discussion, so I think a talk page should be adequate in cases where there are so many similar redirects. JackSchmidt (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per Jack Schmidt Tavix (talk) 23:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all unless someone creates an article called "List of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City missions", in which case they should point there and be marked {{R to list entry}}. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum However, I should say that it seems extremely likely to me that such an article would fail WP:GAMEGUIDE. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 00:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They are taking names that coincide with popular expressions. They should be red links for possible articles (think names of rap music albums and articles on english expressions) "Love Juice", "Messing with the Man", "Cleaning the Hood", "Just Bussiness" --Enric Naval (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per above. It's just ridiculous really. Hugely unnecessary and can only lead to confusion. --.:Alex:. 19:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, sooner rather than later. This doesn't need a full discussion cycle. Croctotheface (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom and as per Croctotheface - X201 (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dbam Talk/Contributions 15:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except Four Iron (can be retargeted to Iron (golf)), Bombs Away (can be dabified as the phrase begins the titles of a John Stewart album and a John Steinbeck book, plus is a frequently used expression similar to "Geronimo!"), Publicity Tour (can be redirected to Advertising campaign), No Escape? (can be retargeted to No Escape, the title of a Ray Liotta film), Rub Out (move to lower case, then dabify as the phrase has several meanings, including assassination (or homicide) and to erase), Wrong Side of the Tracks (move to remove capitalisation and dabify as there are quite a few recordings and other uses of that phrase mentioned in various Wikipedia articles - look through the search option and you'll see them), Just Business (retarget to Just Business (Prison Break), an article on an episode of an American television series), and Mall Shootout (can be retargeted to Brinks robbery (1981), which occurred at the Nanuet Mall, and - you guessed it - involved a shootout with the local police). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think redirects to unrelated articles should be an outcome to an RfD discussion, but if the outcome of this process is to delete these redirects, I think it would be appropriate to incorporate some of your suggestions by either implementing them before an admin deletes the redirects or by recreating them. -- smurdah[citation needed] 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that this is Redirects for Discussion - boldly redirecting is usually encouraged, but in some cases, it can be considered disruptive. My recommendations are merely that - recommendations. The closing admin has the final call (if the final call is to delete them all, then bold retargeting or the dabification suggestions would be irrelevant/moot). Now, if someone else wishes to be bold here, I am not standing in his/her/its way. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boldly redirected Four Iron, Publicity Tour, Just Business, and No Escape? per above. I'm not sure about Mall Shootout (more discussion is needed). If no one creates the dab pages in the next day or two, I'll see about creating them. I've also redirected All Hands on Deck to Boatswain's call#Commands, but "AHoD" should be converted into a dab page because of two films of the same name. B.Wind (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dab pages were created for Bombs Away (ironically, no mention of the interjection at all), the newly-moved Rub out, and Wrong Side of the Tracks. B.Wind (talk) 07:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I went ahead and struck out the articles that are now useful disambiguation pages or better redirects, thanks to the bold actions of B.Wind. I do still think that "No Escape?" still is a candidate for deletion, but since it's now a redirect to a different (non GTA) page, it requires a separate nomination and has been struck from this list. -- smurdah[citation needed] 15:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't need a separate nomination as the discussion is continuing. See below.B.Wind (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another note - I do not see anything anywhere on the WP:RfD stating that if a redirect is nominated for discussion/deletion, there is any limit restricting it to the general topic of the target of the redirect. Now, if you can point to any anything above stating that the target must have something to do with GTA, I will apologize and revert my editing to reflect such (and realize that after three years of RfD patrol, I have found something new that no one else has pointed out). Also, the re-nomination of the newly-nominated No Escape? is inappropriate because this discussion has yet to be closed; so a quick renomination needs to be closed pronto as it could be interpreted as done in bad faith. B.Wind (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
  • B.Wind -- I'd hope that anyone would assume good faith. My intention was not to do anything sneaky or wrong. I believe that a new redirect pointing to a new location does deserve a new deletion discussion, even if policy doesn't explicitly say so, because it gives a new audience to the discussion (the editors on the new article, who will be notified, as part of the process, on the article talk page) who might be missed the first time around. Do the editors on Grand Theft Auto pages, and those included on this discussion, get a de-facto veto over the editors at No Escape? -- smurdah[citation needed] 18:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Müller (pentathlete) → Hans Müller[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep as it is no longer a redirect, but a stub article. If anyone still wants it deleted, take it to AfD. Tavix (talk) 01:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - points to dab page, making redlink into bluelink inappropriately PamD (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly agree. It could be redirected to Modern pentathlon at the 1972 Summer Olympics, but that would create a circular link on that page. Probably it is better as a red link. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Modern pentathlon at the 1972 Summer Olympics. unnecessary. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. It would be better off as a redlink to show who has articles or not on the pentathlon page. Hans Müller (pentathlete) is a implausible search term and the dab page can just as easily guide someone to the olympics page. Tavix (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a likely search term for someone who hasn't already found the disambig. Also not a likely search term for someone wanting to read about pentathlon 1972. A redlink however might inspire someone to write an article. Usrnme h8er (talk) 11:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, should be redlinked on the dab page.bigissue (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page has now been made into a stub; thus Keep. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close/keep as the redirect has been overwritten with a stub. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hans Müller-Einigen → Hans Müller[edit]

The result of the discussion was redirect converted into a stub article. (non-admin close) B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - points to dab page, making redlink into bluelink inappropriately PamD (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nom now that there's a stub. PamD (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – a redlink will better serve the encyclopedia. Right now a possible contributor will just be confused by the redirect, and at best will replace a disambig page with a stub (which will then have to fixed). A redlink will make it clearer how to create the new article. There is no better place to point it (like a section of an article which could be expanded with details about this person). JackSchmidt (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now a stub. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hans Müller (CSU) → Hans Müller[edit]

The result of the discussion was redirect converted into stub article (non-admin close) B.Wind (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - points to dab page, making redlink into bluelink inappropriately PamD (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination as it's now a stub. PamD (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – same reasons as for HM-E above; confusing as redirect, useful as redlink, no better target. JackSchmidt (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now a stub. -- Matthead  Discuß   20:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Waseem (EastEnders) → List of minor EastEnders characters (2008)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unlikely search target, orphaned (except as an unnecessary link) Stephenb (Talk) 12:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep': In category:EastEnders characters, grouped with other similar articles, is not orphaned and used for convenience. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Marie (EastEnders) → List of buildings in EastEnders[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unlikely search target, orphaned; was previously deleted in November 2007 Stephenb (Talk) 11:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: redirect was not deleted, an article on the character was deleted, this now points to the right direction. Also in category:EastEnders characters with other similar articles. -Trampikey(talk)(contribs) 18:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too trivially mentioned in this context. It is unreasonable to expect someone looking for a character in a list article about a set of buildings (the suitability of the latter as a standalone Wikipedia article should be discussed in a different forum). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gaynor (EastEnders) → List of buildings in EastEnders[edit]

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to List of minor EastEnders characters (2007). -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unlikely search target, orphaned Stephenb (Talk) 11:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you added the redirect to the category - this is an extra, for goodness sake! Stephenb (Talk) 19:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - too trivially mentioned in this context. It is unreasonable to expect someone looking for a character in a list article about a set of buildings (the suitability of the latter as a standalone Wikipedia article should be discussed in a different forum). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

July 7, 2005 London bombing/graphics → 7 July 2005 London bombings[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: useless redirects from merged sub-pages with no incoming links; unlikely search terms Ohconfucius (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete useless, same argument for the others listed below --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

7 July 2005 London bombing/responsibility claims → 7 July 2005 London bombings[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: useless redirects from merged sub-pages with no incoming links; unlikely search terms Ohconfucius (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2005 London bombing/graphics → 7 July 2005 London bombings[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: useless redirects from merged sub-pages with no incoming links; unlikely search terms Ohconfucius (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 July 2005 London bombing/graphics → 7 July 2005 London bombings[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: useless redirects from merged sub-pages with no incoming links; unlikely search terms Ohconfucius (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 July 2005 London bombing/images → 7 July 2005 London bombings[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: useless redirects from merged sub-pages with no incoming links; unlikely search terms Ohconfucius (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Casualties of the 7 July 2005 London bombings/test → 7 July 2005 London bombings[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: useless redirects from merged sub-pages with no incoming links; unlikely search terms Ohconfucius (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - clearly intended to be a temporary page... two-plus years ago. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

2005 London transport explosions/pictures → 7 July 2005 London bombings[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: useless redirects from merged sub-pages with no incoming links; unlikely search terms Ohconfucius (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

2005 London transport explosions/graphics → 7 July 2005 London bombings[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: useless redirects from merged sub-pages with no incoming links; unlikely search terms Ohconfucius (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kim Ki Whang (Ki Whang Kim) → Kim Ki Whang[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The creation of this redirect resulted from a page move done by me while on newpage patrol yesterday. The page's creator became aware of the page move because it caused an edit conflict. I have created a more plausible redirect with the alternate spelling, and what we have here is an unlikely search string.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

ISMCP (disambiguation) → Information Security Management Certified Professional[edit]

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An implausible redirect Tavix (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Recreate, but as an actual dab page, when Wikipedia has an article on another value of this acronym. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: The redirect ISMCP already exists and points to the same target. That one should stay. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 02:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unnecessary. bigissue (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely search strin --RCEberwein | Talk 02:24, 12 January 2009 (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/2009_January_9&oldid=1140563570"