Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 April 8

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Hazmat (comics) → Marvel Nemesis: Rise of the Imperfects (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete redirect. Currently, this redirect points to the section for the character "Hazmat" featured in the video game which is the subject of the target article page. This character lacks notoriety and I propose its deletion with

• Keep' If an article previously existed and was merged we must keep the redirect to provide the required attribution to the material. Even if not, the a redirect is appropriate for every character in a work of fiction mentioned in the main article, however minor. Removing it hinders people who search for information. If there is more than one character with the name, then a disam page is needed instead of a plain redirect. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - character is discussed at the target. There is more confusion regarding the undisambiguated and disambiguated titles of the target (I'm not sure if there really is a primary use, and if there is, it would seem to be the comic series). Should there be a new article on an unrelated Hazmat comic book character at a later time,
  Hazmat (comics) can then be retargeted to the Hazmat dab page. B.Wind (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:40, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pingas (internet meme) → Pinga (disambiguation) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Not covered in the target disambiguation page, inclusion of the meme is debated there and the content has since been removed. As the relevant content is a non-notable Youtube meme, I am unsure this is a helpful search term.

I previously deleted this as R3: Implausible and G3: Vandalism, as it was pointing to a TV show, but I restored the history which points to the disambiguation as it may not be a strict speedy candidate. Taelus (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional to provide context: From what I gather, this meme originates from the fact that taking a chunk of the audio from the phrase "Snooping as usual I see" from an animated TV show, you end up with this which is bordering on profanity. Content on this meme has been deleted from Wikipedia several times in the past due to Youtube memes not being notable, and as mentioned above it is not currently included at the disambiguation page. I would suggest it is certainly not suitable to be pointed to the show Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog, but thought I would bring it to RfD to gain full consensus on pointing to a disambig page as it technically isn't a speedy delete candidate in this form from what I can see. --Taelus (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not mentioned at all on disambiguation page that serves as target (and if it were, the redirect should be pointed to the article that was discussed). B.Wind (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete The content this redirect references, which I had originally added to the target page, isn't at the target page because it got deleted after I added it and the redirect. I think that content should be brought back and then this redirect will make sense. The "Pingas" article itself is locked, but the brief description that was on the disambiguation page was earnest and concise enough for a disambiguation page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wykypydya (talk • contribs)
  • Unfortunately, the content I just re-removed from the target page is unsuitable, because it doesn't disambiguate a term. The content needs to be elsewhere, and I highly doubt we will include a section on internet memes in the TV show's article with the current level of notability. As I explained when undoing your change to the disambig page, please see
    WP:D3 for a quick guide to what disambiguation pages are for. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - as currently aligned, there is no appropriate target for the redirect. As an "internet meme," it doesn't appear to have enough coverage in
  reliable sources to merit its own article. B.Wind (talk) 04:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Great Repeal Bill → wikiversity:Great Repeal Bill (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Great repeal bill → wikiversity:Great Repeal Bill (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete both soft redirects. These were someone's experiment in the summer of 2009, in part as a self-promotion. As pointed out in the first deletion nomination, this is a spam link that should not have been created in Wikipedia in the first place (note: the first RfD was closed as "no consensus"). Now that about nine months have passed since the last time, it's time to get rid of this abuse of Wikipedia once and for all. Wikipedia shoud never be used to promote one's personal cause. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. I speedied one without realizing there had been a previous RfD, and think they ought to be deleted still.  fetchcomms☛ 20:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The reason I recreated one of them is because it was linked to from the Telegraph blog on the previous day, and as such it made sense to keep that link in place at that time. I don't think it's needed any longer, although I don't think it's doing any harm either. Mike Peel (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as a redirect that is simply absurd. My reasoning from the previous RFD still stands; it is a redirect to a page on another project, which is a completely unencyclopedic concept that is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia. — The Earwig ^(talk) 21:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the utility of the links has reduced with time so there's no longer much of a convenience reason to leave these links up. This is clearly an entirely inappropriate concept for Wikipedia, we don't need to be linking to it. ~ mazca ^talk 22:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was contacted about this discussion since I was involved in the previous discussion, and my reasoning remains the same. It's a spam link, a misuse of Wikipedia, and even as a soft redirect it shouldn't be here. Soft redirects are perfect for additional factual info on things some sister projects do better (Wiktionary, Commons), not for things like this.
  Fram (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. We need to treat fellow explorers of new media with more respect. I don't agree with either the politics or the methods of the Great Repeal Bill, but that is my personal opinion, and I would not use the word spam: the whole point of soft redirects is to link to things that are not appropriate uses of Wikipedia. In the first discussion, I said (sorry for the poor English): "I would support keeping the redirect, for 12 months or so, as one of our objectives of volunteers and the foundation is to promote 'the wiki way'." Since the bill project is very quiet, I agree that it is now time to delete this interwiki link. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:27, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - there was no legitimate reason for keeping these. They were created solely to promote a UK politician's cause and a corruption of the purposes of both Wikipedia and Wikiversity. While normally I would agree with Hrothulf's sentiment regarding the use of the word "spam", in this case the word is appropriate. Soft redirects should be used only for legitimate uses of the various wikia projects, not this. B.Wind (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as cross-project redirects that don't appear relevant to encyclopedia users; also per
  WP:SOAP. Cnilep (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• RIBW → wikt:RIBW (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete soft redirect to Wiktionary listing of Dutch acronym (and has no real definition for the full name). If this were a redirect to an English language acronym, I can see that, but this isn't it. The soft redirect and Wiktionary entry were created November 2009. People searching Dutch acronyms would be far more likely to check the Dutch Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above.  fetchcomms☛ 20:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People looking for the acronym will know that it is a dutch acronym and not an english. Carsrac (talk) 05:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Décembër21st2012Freâk ^Talk at 02:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]