January 2
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on January 2, 2008
The result of the debate was
delete.
WjBscribe 02:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 23:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Attack redirect with no evidence of widespread usage. —dgiestc 07:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If someone knows to type this, they know how to type NASCAR; or they were looking to see whether this is a notable nickname, in which case it is not unless sourced. –Pomte 10:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Waste of keystrokes to create Victuallers (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because there are 823,000 Google hits for NA$CAR. *** Crotalus *** 07:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per Crotalus. Not entirely implausible search term. — Steven Evens (contribs) 00:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Satiric misspelling exactly as Micro$oft. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Retarget as satyric misspelling per Magioladitis -- Nips (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
keep. -
Mtmelendez (Talk) 15:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Created as the result of an erroneous page move. Not necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It was a typo. Benjiboi 04:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as plausible search term. –Pomte 04:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, plausible typo/search term, no reason to delete --Closedmouth (talk) 05:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is absolutely a plausible search. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Likely to be used in searches. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree. I would first right it like that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you all joking? The actual name of the article isn't even a plausible search term. No one is going to type "Madonna as a gay icon" into the search box (I can't put a great deal of stock in the person who says he would first "right" (sic) it that way). Even if they did, in the absence of the redirect the very first thing that would appear in the search results would be Madonna as gay icon. This redirect was created in error, the creator of the redirect is telling you it was created in error and it serves no purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Who cares? Redirects are cheap, and it's entirely plausible that someone will want to know about "Madonna as a gay icon". Redirects are specifically designed to avoid the search page. What's the problem? --Closedmouth (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course the actual name of the article is a plausible search term. A number of readers have read this article and know it exists. Now, if they ever want to find it again, they could either type in Madonna and click a bunch of links, or more quickly, they could type out what they recollect as the article name, and this is definitely one of the possibilities. This applies also to someone who tells someone else, "hey, there's an article on Wikipedia about Madonna as a gay icon, you should go read it." Why would anyone rather it be the first search result than the actual target? –Pomte 11:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
delete.
WjBscribe 02:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And these as well:
"John Leyton" → John Leyton
"John Rock" → John Rock
"jerry sutton" → Jerry Sutton
"jason mittell" → Jason Mittell -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect that uses quotes only for emphasizing. R3 was declined because "the article wasn't recently created" by User:Od Mishehu. I think we need a new speedy deletion criteria. They are many redirects that need to be deleted for the same reason. Yesterday i tagged for R3 100 redirects for the same reason which all were deleted. If you check Special:Prefixindex there are much more. Magioladitis (talk) 13:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have requested an expansion of the speedy deletion criteria. Please check Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all of them (and reverse the ones that were deleted recently) until someone finally fixes the glitch in the search engine that keeps baiting new users into creating these pages (most of which are either merged or moved to the real title before being turned into a redirect). The quotes are probably not being added for emphasis. See the "Snake Pit" discussion below for more details on why and how these mistakes keep happening. Rossami (talk) 16:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment the search box on the left ignores quotes when you are searching for an article. So these redirects are unaccessible by this system. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The search engine only ignores the quotes when attempting to find an existing page. When suggesting where to create a page that doesn't yet exist, the quotes are included. Follow this link to a non-existant page and click the suggested redlink at the top of the page. If you thought that there should be a page by that exact title and tried to create it, you would be doing so with the quotes automatically added. Rossami (talk) 21:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. Not helpful, not likely to enter, confusing. IF needed for page history move the redirect into Wikipedia space and delete THAT redirect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all If someone does use the quotes to indicate a phrase, it will be found in the search. Reywas92Talk 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete before someone creates a bot to create redirects for the existing 2 million articles Victuallers (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you misunderstand the issue. The edit history shows that this is where the pages were before being moved. No one that I know of is deliberately creating these redirects. They are an artifact of the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment As Wikipedia:Naming conventions writes: To maintain the functionality of Alphabetical Indexing and avoid needless redirect pages, page names should not begin with non alpha-numeric (A-Z,0-9) characters used solely for emphasis. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.The result of the debate was
delete.
WjBscribe 01:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as ambiguous. Target has been merged with its edit history intact. This one has a trivial edit history. –Pomte 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Inappropriate. Many schools have a "department of history and political science". That would be like redirecting Shop class to Joe Blow Random Highschool (Everytown, USA) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBilly (talk • contribs) 06:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The content of this page was moved back in May 2007 and then merged to yet a different page earlier today. While the redirect could be seen as ambiguous if considered alone, it is serving to preserve part of the edit history (though Pomte is correct that the edit history is also copied in the destination page's history). Since few redirects are considered independently, I think the value of keeping history slightly outweighs the theoretical future confusion. If anyone ever wants/needs to create an actual article (or even a disambiguation page) at this title, they can always overwrite the redirect. Rossami (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as ambiguous. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Inappropriate. Victuallers (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.