Content-Length: 197084 | pFad | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_5

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 5 - Wikipedia Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 5

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 5, 2009

The result of the discussion was Delete --Allen3 talk 00:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There once was a German band using this name [1] but they are not related to the guitarist. No links to the RDR.----Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the discussion was deleted. krimpet 22:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further human parts research. Also see:

At least it's not ten pages this time. Both are not linked to.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 04:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the discussion was deleted. krimpet 22:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another lesson in biology. Also see:

Not linked to at all. Consider other possible targets Do I have a fetish yet? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 04:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the discussion was deleted. krimpet 22:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following the trend started yesterday. See also:

Thank you.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 01:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Improper humor meets WP:Vandalism. Speedy delete and flag the author. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. At least there were no duplicates of those that were deleted in the first set last week. B.Wind (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now that the snickering is over, perhaps, other than some bored kids seeing what WP turns up when they type in various synonyms or euphemisms for breast these serve no real purpose. There are whole books devoted to synomyms or euphemisms for nearly all body parts or sexual acts that will give us hundreds of redirects. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term or link target, unused. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 18:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only on pirrrrrrate day -- lucasbfr talk 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Retarget Averell (talk) 08:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect the name of a specific software (bug tracking tool) to a generic list, and the only page that links to it is the target page itself. Averell (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fix. I suggest changing the redirect to redirect to Seapine Software, the owner of TestTrack_Pro . Mathiastck (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Delete and recreate the redirect to Web portal once we have expanded the target accordingly..Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unuseful cross-namespace redirect and unlikely search term. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the discussion was Keep. Lenticel (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely implausible typo. Majorly talk 09:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Not applicable. RFD is not doe debating whether articles should exist or not. That's AFD. Besides the precedural grounds, there seems to be no consensus for redirecting. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article HAD been a redirect (since November) until an anonymous user reverted it back to its "article" status. The article seems to have enough information to be a stub, at best. So, the question is, should this go back to being a redirect or should it remain as a stub? Matt (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The second and third paragraphs of the article as it stands now weren't in the pre-redirection version, and they now make this an article with information on the field of arthropodology, where the article previously had only a dictionary definition, along with WP:COATRACK information about arthropods and about arthropodologists. I would still remove the last paragraph, but other than that the article now has substantive information about its topic. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say this is worth keeping, as it's a distinct topic from arthropod (which is linked in the first line, for anyone who wants to find it, anyway). Terraxos (talk) 21:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The result of the discussion was Deleted. Mister Alcohol's comment shows the harm of this redirect. The target is not a redirect. If someone add (disambiguation) to a title, they are specifically looking for a disambiguation page. It is wrong to have that be a blue link when one doesn't exist. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term Tavix (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Here is a case where there are other uses of the term in reliable sources (such as [2]) but there seem no Wikipedia articles covering them. It's a long title, but a significant number of readers/editors have used [[Foo (disambiguation)]] as a lookup when they know that "Foo" has multiple meanings. While there is clearly one major meaning/use of the term, nothing would be gained by the deletion of this redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. How likely will it be for articles covering different meanings of the term to be created? There is very little potential to be maintained by keeping, but zero to be gained by deleting. Either way, it's not really worth the trouble of this RfD. B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It may be a long title, but a significant number of readers/editors have used [[Foo (disambiguation)]] as a lookup when they know that "Foo" has multiple meanings. While there is clearly one major meaning/use of the term, nothing would be gained by the deletion of this redirect -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.








ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_5

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy