Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 26

A-roid → Alex Rodriguez

Delete. This is a somewhat offensive nickname given to the player, and is not likely the term used by someone looking to find the article. Hellno2 (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment you may also want to consider A-roid as well for deletion. --76.66.187.34 (talk) 03:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just added it. Hellno2 (talk) 17:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - inappropriate name to call a player (and redirect).

Delete Why isn't this already deleted? It should of been deleted the second it was nominated. SuperSilver901 23:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only specific spoiler that redirects to the article on spoilers. "Snape kiils Dumbledore" is not discussed in the spoiler article. Delete as pointless. Mike R (talk) 15:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. — Reinyday, 17:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince.SPNic (talk) 18:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, it was originally created as a redirect to Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, then it was changed to the current target. I don't see the value in the redirect to the former target. We don't redirect Crowe is a ghost to The Sixth Sense, do we? Mike R (talk) 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In it's alternative incarnation as
      Snape kills Dumbledore, it has a longer history than that. See Harry Potter trolling (AfD discussion). Uncle G (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Delete Nominator expressed my reasoning better than I can. Allventon (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no need to redirect to media in general.
  _talk 08:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment (previous nomination)
  Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion/Redirect Archives/April 2006#Snape kills dumbledore → Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Brian Jason Drake 09:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete no obvious suitable target for this redirect. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this was not a true SotU address. ApprenticeFan (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There never was and never will be an official 2009 SOTU, but this was widely referred to as a an SOTU in all but technicality. So how does keeping this redirect cause any harm? It might even help a few users find the speech they were looking for. Joshdboz (talk) 12:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The speech session was not an actual official SotU. The reason is to delete the redirect page. ApprenticeFan (talk) 14:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. For all intents and purposes, it was a State of the Union address. It is merely governmental procedure to not call the first speech before Congress in a presidential term a "State of the Union" address. You'll note that Joint session of the United States Congress mentions similar speeches in 1993 and 2001, also years when new presidents took office. (These speeches also tend to focus on the economy and budget.) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 14:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as redirect: the whole point of redirects is so that readers can find the article they are looking for when they know it by a different name. While it isn't actually a State of the Union address, it can be erroneously referred to as such. 163.1.146.77 (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per 163.1.146.77's excellent explanation. — Reinyday, 17:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per 163.1.146.77. It is easy to imagine many people searching for this speech as a "State of the Union". Otebig (talk) 21:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I concur with Otebig's assessment that "It is easy to imagine many people searching for this speech as a 'State of the Union'". Allventon (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep similar name, and should stay in the case of someone having difficulty finding the original page.

• Keep Plausible unambiguous search term. Strict accuracy is not required for redirects. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Securitas heist already exists, could not find evidence that this is a proper name/nickname, and is uppercase>lowercase, not the other way around

• Keep - plausible search term. Redirects are cheap and I see no good reason to delete it.
  talk) 16:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I created this because there was a link gong to it. I fixed the link but this is a term at least one editor used. — Reinyday, 17:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Trivial capitalization variants are fine. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as plausible search term.PaulJones (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NEO, was unable to find any evidence that this is a valid term for a climate refugee LetsdrinkTea 03:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Like this? Or would you prefer we start a new article. Or just delete it entirely. Have a nice day and keep those AfD's going, faster faster faster lol.
  talk) 04:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "Climate Fears Are Driving 'Ecomigration' Across Globe", By Shankar Vedantam, The Washington Post, February 23, 2009; Page A01
  • I actually do research on the articles in question before voting, believe it or not LetsdrinkTea 04:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Glad to hear. Sorry I sounded snarky, understand the overload.
      talk) 04:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Another
  • "New Zealand: The Dream Destination for ‘Ecomigrants’?"

"Most ecomigrants, or people who leave their home countries because of climate change, are poor, desperate and often homeless."

talk) 04:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep per linked articles. — Reinyday, 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per linked articles.--Rogerb67 (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]