Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 18

The result of the debate was Delete. ]

Not clear in the target article how this person is related. Dems on the move (talk) 23:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete There're a couple sources mentioning that Nina was Iggy's girlfriend at one point, which might explain the redirect. However, that seems to have lasted for only about a day or two, so she doesn't even bother a mention in his article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In general, I think that these kind of redirects serve a useful purpose in preempting the creation of an inappropriate page about the non-notable person but if the connection was that transitory and noting that there are zero inbound links or history, deletion of this redirect would appear to be acceptable. Rossami (talk) 13:20, 19 August 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. Lenticel ^(talk) 23:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no explanation in the redirect's target article of why this is related or an appropriate redirect. Not very useful for research of the term amadon. No wiktionary entry, either. /Ninly (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The connection to the target article is clearer when you look at the first version of the page which asserts that Amadon was a person who featured (prominently?) in the book. The page had no possibility of standing alone. The content appears to have been briefly merged back into the target article but then edited out. Keep both to preempt the recreation of this inappropriate drill-down article and to ensure our compliance with the attribution requirements of GFDL if the merged content is ever restored. Rossami (talk) 13:27, 19 August 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 - this is the right venue, but no reason has been advanced why this redirect should be deleted. Redirecting a renamed category seems a reasonable action. WJBscribe (talk) 01:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category was CfD'ed six months ago and the result was "rename". That apparently happened, but the category still exists as a redirect with no articles in it. RossPatterson (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Proper venue is
  WT:CfD, as it apparently wasn't completed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Well it seems that the category had been emptied and deleted so the category move was completed properly. It was then recreated and redirected once recognized as duplicate. With the current template it might actually help to prevent recreation by others that just think of CRM. So why not keep it--
  Tikiwont (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Category:Free CRM software was deleted as a result of the same deletion discussion that Category:CRM software was in. That December 31, 2007 deletion discussion said to rename the category, not make it into a redirect. May be Category:CRM software can be deleted based on the December 31, 2007 deletion discussion. Suntag (talk) 20:45, 29 August 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 G3 by Dlohcierekim, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a joke. meshach (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• G3 Vandalism redirect. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:06, 18 August 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 Delete. Lenticel ^(talk) 23:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divisive name, violates

]

• Keep Normally I would agree with the nom, but I think this is something that Stephen Colbert wouldn't have a problem with, simply because it's kind of funny. The name isn't just that of a living person, but also of a character. It's a strange situation that we don't normally come across. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason to keep. The pages are not related at all. meshach (talk) 17:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Welcome to RFD, we we don't subscribe to such folly as the
    AADD list. We have different deletion thresholds here, and "I like it" can be a valid reason to keep, particularly in project space. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak Keep. We aren't the only ones accusing him of coordinating vandalism against Wikipedia. However, the implication of (T)ERRORISM may be a little too extreme. Perhaps WP:COLBERVANDALISM would be an adequate link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and quick, before he gets wind we made up -another- excuse for him to riff on Wikipedia. The shortcut also seems to be of limited use...no links to it, and the term doesn't see any use in my eyes. I think just WP:COLBERT would make a good shortcut there, makes more sense too. (and this is more of a "weak delete", but "Weak delete, quickly!" makes for a much more confusing opening) --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I made this based on a joke term people were using at the time; it was a bit of satire of the amount of panic some people seemed to feel about the whole episode. Honestly I'm surprised either the page or the redirect has survived this long. I think the BLP argument is overblown, and the "Colbert will make fun of this" argument rather overestimates the amount of effort Mr. Colbert's scriptwriters are likely to want to (or have to) put in to find something to make fun of Wikipedia for. But no, the redirect obviously isn't terribly useful, so I can't say I care much. -- SCZenz (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opening argument wasn't serious. Should have made it more obvious. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Colberooo-what? Neologism shortcuts should be easier to remember and spell than this. Delete as unfeasible redirect. -
  Mailer Diablo 11:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Not handy and imprecise. --
  Tikiwont (talk) 08:39, 27 August 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. (non-admin closure) Mastrchf (^t/_c) 17:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article name is basically a factually incorrect elongation of more correct "National Health Service" and encourages misconception that there is one all-British health system. article is redundant (the few double-redirects have been corrected) and encourages/enables double-redirects and content forks re "National Health Service" and "NHS" MBRZ48 (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it documents an old pagemove that was carried out before the MediaWiki software was changed to automatically document pagemoves in the pagehistories. Redirects are automatically created by the pagemove process for a number of intentional reasons. Redirects are not an endorsement of the incorrect title. On the contrary, they are explicitly a way to politely point our readers to the correct title and show them the error. The way to prevent the confusion you describe is to go through and orphan the redirect (which appears to be largely done now). The redirect still has value as part of the project's history. Rossami (talk) 13:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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