Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 10

The result of the debate was keep. bibliomaniac15 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to this redirect and it is too long and it is very unlikly that a user will search this, so I think it should be deleted Gman124 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one of the episodes in the list to which it is a redirect (Google the name, you'll get plenty of sources). It's a common practice: see here for an explanation. If the list is fine, it's helpful to have links to the individual episodes. Nyttend (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per above, nothing I can add. The Dominator (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. bibliomaniac15 05:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is offensive to the encyclopedia. Nothing444 (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And what, we might hurt it's feelings? I don't think it's offensive. In fact, this is a plausible search term and will direct people to the topic they're likely to want. Keep. And protect, whether deleted or not. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• POV is no reason for deleting a redirect. While I wouldn't be shedding any tears over its loss should it be deleted, deleting the redirect as an "attack page" would be stretching things a bit. Keep. B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment POV is not a reason by itself to delete a redirect if people are going to use those words to look for an article --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I actually think that many people would think of searching for this. Even though it would be mostly trolls, I still think many people would find it useful. The Dominator (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that's fairly likely that people will be searching for this. --Liempt (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible search term and accurate enough description of target. –Pomte 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. bibliomaniac15 05:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing links to this redirect and it is too long and it is very unlikly that a user will search this, so I think it should be deleted Gman124 (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is one of the episodes in the list to which it is a redirect (Google the name, you'll get plenty of sources). It's a common practice: see here for an explanation. If the list is fine, it's helpful to have links to the individual episodes. Nyttend (talk) 00:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. The Dominator (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a redirect page, nothing links to it, it's unlikely that someone would search for an article under the specific name "PBX/IPBX", and it was added by someone who was in the midst of a spamming rampage and in conjunction with it. Largo Plazo (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redirects for
  Private branch exchange --Enric Naval (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. 5,000 Ghits seems sufficient to warrant having the term redirect. Just because it's creation may have been sketchy is not a good reason to delete an otherwise valid redirect--redirects are [generally] harmless and cheap. From the intro of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion: "Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect."--there's multiple reasons why it says that. Shawisland (talk) 07:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was keep. bibliomaniac15 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a dab at 4Runner to disambiguate among the car, the country group, and their debut album. Note also that the band puts a space between "4" and "Runner", while the car does not; therefore, the "(band)" part of this redirect is superfluous. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• While I agree that the disambiguation is redundant, I can also see it as a possible search item as there are a few "4 Runners" or "4Runners". Redirects are cheap, and there is no harm in keeping this one. B.Wind (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible search term. –Pomte 18:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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