September 26
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 26, 2008
I hope she made lotsa spaghetti → Hotel Mario
The result of the debate was
delete.
WJBscribe (talk) 22:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Not mentioned in target article, YouTube Poop cruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, Beeblebrox (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy per above two related noms. MSJapan (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you need instructions on how to Delete a redirect, check out the enclosed instruction book. JuJube (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:IAR. All policies say it should be deleted, making my keep motion worthless, but it's funny. I mean, it's not encyclopedic, not informational, borderline attack, borderline nonsense, technically that's not even said in the same, but man, it's Gay Luigi. "Nice of the princess to invite us over for a picnic, gay Luigi?" Oh, YTP... Wizardman 17:48, 29 September 2008 (UTC) My keep vote isn't really a keep if you haven't figured it out. As much as I'd like to keep it it's pointless.[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).
Ruslik (
talk) 09:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
A speedy was declined on this redirect because "redirects are cheap". While this is somewhat true, I believe that redirects should not exist for all various typographical errors just because they take up minimal webspace. It is fairly obvious that someone once accidentally searched for "Machester United" while looking for Manchester United F.C. and decided it was worthwhile to make a redirect. I am also nominating Manchester unted for deletion for the same reason. – PeeJay 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Redirects are cheap; our search engine doesn't suggests alternatives, so when the drunk and semi-literate turn up here, they type a rough approximation of the title they're seeking and get nothing. So they start an article, which then needs redirecting - as both of these examples show: Manchester unted created with the text INTRO Manchester United are a brilliant football team in the FA Premier league and is run by Sir Alex Ferguson. TEAM Here are a list of Manchester United`s team 1.Edwin Van Der Sar 2.Gary Neville 3.Patrice Evra 4.Owen Hargreaves 5.Rio Ferdinand 6.Wes Brown 7.Cristiano Ronaldo 8.Anderson 9.Louis Saha 10.Wayne Rooney 11.Ryan Giggs 13.Park Ji-Sung 15.Nemanja Vidic 16.Michael Carrick 17.Luis Nani 18.Paul Scholes 22.John O`Shea 24.Darren Fletcher 27.Mikael Silvestre 32.Carlos Tevez and redirected immediately; Machester United created with the text Machester United a English soccer club has the best ever team and immediately redirected. This is what redirects from typos are for. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 19:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as a perfectly plausible search term and per Redvers hilarious explanation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it "perfectly plausible"? The redirects use completely uncommon typographical errors. If we have a redirect from Machester United, why don't we have redirects from Mnchester United, Manhester United, Mancester United, Manchster United, Mancheter United, Mancheser United, Manchestr United, Mancheste United, Manchester nited, Manchester Uited, Manchester Unted, Manchester Unied, Manchester Unitd or Manchester Unite? Redirects may be cheap, but this is just ludicrous! – PeeJay 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're missing a slightly bigger point. The articles under these two redirects were created in good faith by new editors. They do not qualify for speedy delete - and deleting them would be biting the newbie. So they'd have to go to AfD, where there would be a pile on of people shouting "delete per nom" or "redirect to...". This would be horrible for the new editor, who would most likely leave. That helps no-one. So we silently redirect to the correct article. The editor keeps the record of their contribution - always important, it's the only currency we have - but if they click they find a whole, well-written article they can add to. And the next poor speller who comes along gets the full article. So everybody wins. If we delete these, they will be recreated by someone else; and we run the risk of setting a precident that removes redirection from the armoury of New Pages Patrollers. If that happens, I hope more people will lend a hand at AfDing these types of dud articles - dozens and dozens a day - and trying to make it up to new users. But they won't. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 08:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as plausible nd the fact that most newspapers are too lazy to type F.C. ;-) Pie is good (Apple is the best) 19:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not as simple as someone just forgetting to add the "F.C." to the end. There is also a spelling mistake. – PeeJay 07:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A spelling mistake that at least one person has made in the past. If one person can do it, hundreds can do it - each time generating an article that needs redirection. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ is repressed but remarkably dressed 08:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was an error related to some bush league college team, I might agree with PeeJay, but we are talking about Manchester United, one of the most well known sports teams in the world. If one person typed this in looking for them, somebody else will come along and do the same, and will find the content they are looking for. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, plausible typo and redirects are, indeed, cheap. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 29 September 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 Despite being informed, the only person with an objection has not seen fit to join the debate here.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 19:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
I'm nominating this a procedural matter on another users behalf based on this comment on the talk page: This redirect is not helpful. If someone is searching for information on Columbia Bible College, they should be directed to the article dealing with Columbia Bible College, not Columbia International University. I know that the latter was once called Columbia Bible College, but it isn't anymore. I feel that this redirect should be removed. Rdthiessen (talk) 04:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as former name of an institution named as its target. If there is currently a Columbia Bible College, a standalone article can overwrite the redirect (and should a new article be written about that institution, I'd strongly recommend a hatnote showing the new name of the former Columbia Bible College). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.70.242.40 (talk) [reply]
- Keep as if they wanted info about the Columbia Bible College, all info would be at Columbia International University. However, if there is a current Columbia Bible College, create an article for it if its notable enough. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 14:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.