Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 18, 2012

Normal Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial[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--Salix (talk): 15:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly implausible. "Normal" for "Norman" might be somewhat common, but there hasn't been an article at Norman Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial since 2006. – hysteria18 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete indeed. Implausible. Could be speedy. Nice notifying by nom, about my 6 yr old mistype: appreciated. -DePiep (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have made it a Speedy for R3: implausible mistype. No harm will be done. -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy-deletion declined. This was the original location of the content prior to your pagemove in 2006. Created that long ago is certainly not "recently created" as required by the CSD criterion. Discussion is required here to confirm that there is no likelihood of external inbound links to that title.
        Incidentally, I agree that the probability of inbound links is small. However, I also note that the redirect has existed without causing confusion or controversy for almost 6 years. The bar for redirects is very low. The project does not appear to gain anything by deleting this redirect. Rossami (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Boring. The speedy rule says:R3. Implausible typos (check), and also when recently &tc. Further reading: WP:SNOWBALL, WP:LAWYER. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • You have successfully quoted the title of the R3 criterion but missed the next two words which explicitly require it to have been "Recently created". Further reading: Wikipedia:Process is important. Rossami (talk) 21:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • You missed the essence, of which i quoted the word also. Here it is in full: This criterion also applies to redirects created as a result of a page move of pages recently created at an implausible title. So, to explain the obvious, your argument "recently created" is only one argument in R3. And about your tone here: yes i can quote successfully, thank you. Can you achieve that level in reading? -DePiep (talk) 10:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: though typo is indeed plausible, overall the name seems to be too long to be useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:35, 20 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.

O-face[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 Keep stats show usage--Salix (talk): 15:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mistakenly sent to AFD by Ale And Quail with rationale "Some one made this redirect to link a joke from a movie, to Orgasm. I think it's like fan-site material, juvenile and not encyclopedic." Moving here for proper discussion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:06, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't consciously link it as a reference to Office Space -- I thought it was part of the common vernacular. Vranak (talk) 03:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I saw that its only links were two images from Office Space (and thought they didn't really need an informational link to Orgasm.) Maybe I ought to have looked at when the redirect was created; I mis-presumed. It still seems closer to Urban Dictionary material, than encyclopedia material, to me. But I have no need to push that, if others disagree. I've been running into a lot of crufty pages, and trying to clean them up, and after a few days of that I probably get a quick trigger finger. Thanks. Ale And Quail (talk) 03:55, 18 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_18&oldid=1039431334"