Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 16[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 16, 2010

Davy Jones (song)[edit]

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 retargetted to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (soundtrack). Thryduulf (talk) 07:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The target article is not about a song, and does not even mention a song, called "Davy Jones" or otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the above, I have boldly retargeted it to Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (soundtrack). B.Wind (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Banthoon Lamsam[edit]

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 per WP:CSD#G6 (housekeeping, non-controversial cleanup). Thryduulf (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect to article about a different person, created during moving of the article, which was originally misnamed. Paul_012 (talk) 14:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ctrl Alt Del (webcomic)[edit]

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 All deleted per CSD G8: Page dependant on a deleted page. --Taelus (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirects, thanks to the mindless deletion (I'm referring to the process, not necessarily the decision) of the Ctrl+Alt+Del web comic's article. Don Cuan (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • speedy delete all per WP:CSD#G8. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll go tidy them all up now, my apologies for the messy process, there was a significant delay between the AfD ending and the deletion occuring, along with a handful of other double redirect issues. Hopefully this is the last of the remainder, thanks for tracking them down. --Taelus (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done, I wish that the bot which "tidied up" this sort of thing left some kind of mark on the "What links here" page, but eh, perfect world doesn't exist. Feel free to give me a poke on my talk page if any more are dug up that the redirect bot has hidden somewhere. --Taelus (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Struggle against extremism[edit]

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. An overly general term without strong evidence of a specific link to this target rather than any others. ~ mazca talk 22:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per IP. This is a general term that shouldn't redirect to a very specific one. B.Wind (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - target article has been moved to War on Terrorism by User:Anthony Appleyard 17 March 2010. No change on any of my recommendations presented here. B.Wind (talk) 23:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Slightly too general a term, other things have been or could be described as "struggles against extremism". It's my undertanding that terrorism and extremism are two different (though potentially related) things, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 20:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the two terms ("terrorism" and "extremism") are independent of each other, American politics notwithstanding. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Anti-terrorism program[edit]

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 counter-terrorism per the unanimity of the participants, including the nominator. Cunard (talk) 07:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or retarget with 17-18 hits a month since December it is clear that this is used, and so it should be kept. However I wouldn't object to a retarget to an article discussing specific anti-terrorism program(s). Thryduulf (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have retargeted per above discussion since there appears to be unanimity in the recommendations. As a non-admin who participated in the discussion of this relisted nomination, I cannot close this and must leave it to an admin to do so. B.Wind (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

Global War of Terror[edit]

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. B.Wind's point about the clear lack of a preferable target between two possibilities definitely suggests that this redirect would be more helpful as a search engine result. ~ mazca talk 22:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JokerXtreme (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there are two contradictory, potentially confusing likely targets. Let the reader choose from the search engine. B.Wind (talk) 17:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Doesn't Shock and awe indicate that all sides intend to terrorize? Hcobb (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Slashdot trolling phenomenon[edit]

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 slashdot effect. Thryduulf (talk) 17:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This has been searched for 39 times back in January and 40 times in February, therefore, there have been people searching for this term. I would recommend that you should check the stats of the redirects before determining the likelihood of a search term, as this is an important step in determining this. -- IRP ☎ 18:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The linked statistics indicate how many times the page has been "viewed". This is not the same as how many times the term has been searched for. For example, I have just viewed it, not because I searched for that term, but because, having seen this discussion, I wanted to look at its history. In fact does linking through it to the redirect target count as "viewing" it at all? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. How is this concept actually documented in the target article? JBsupreme (talk) 07:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 10:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure, but it seems that retargeting to Slashdot effect to be a viable compromise here. B.Wind (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Slashdot effect, which is a better target for this search term. Because this has been searched for 40 times in February (per IRP), this is a plausible search term, and a redirect to Slashdot effect would bring readers to a more accurate target. Cunard (talk) 07:13, 23 March 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_March_16&oldid=1142587726"