June 15

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 15, 2009

Arthurkade

The result of the discussion was Result was Speedy delete under G8. Non-admin closure. ~ Amory (usertalkcontribs) 02:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to non-existent page mhking (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charles Bernard (figure skater)

The result of the discussion was Speedy close Discussion is no longer valid, as redirect was turned into an article. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many ottersOne batOne hammer) 19:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect. This is a confusing and circular redirect. It redirects the name of a notable person to an article that lists the medalists at a certain competition. Charles Bernard medaled at this competition, which means that the article is linking to itself. Furthermore, people looking for an article on this figure skater aren't looking for the medalists at an international competition, which will confuse them when they find themselves at the Golden Spin article. And if they click on Bernard's name on the Golden Spin article, looking to find the article on this person, it will confuse them even more to find themselves back at the article. Kolindigo (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Holland's Next Top Model, Cycle 5

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Benelux' Next Top Model. Ruslik_Zero 08:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This show is no longer on the national show, it now absorbed to Benelux' Next Top Model. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 10:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Viet Nam National Coal - Mineral Industies Group

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Industies" is a misspelling, highly unlikely typo, hence useless as a redirect - per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 13#Epsiode IV - Contributions/58.8.17.219 (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Office Robbery Statistics

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_Zero 09:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion. A bit of background: In an episode of The Office, the fictional Michael Scott mentions that the Wikipedia article "Office Robbery Statistics" does not exist as part of a one line joke. Consequently, this title has been created or redirected to other articles ever since then, presumably to show that it does exist. Ho ho, how witty. I suggest it is an inappropriate redirect for a number of reasons. The article it currently redirects to (the episode the joke is briefly mentioned in) has no obvious relevance to the title of the redirect. It doesn't mention the term in the episode article never mind explain it. Therefore is entirely incomprehensible, and likely to cause confusion, to someone not already familiar with the joke. Secondly it is a joke, a pop-culture meta-reference to Wikipedia by a fictional character. We should not be creating content simply to tie in with jokes. That is naval gazing of the worst kind. Third, it sets a dangerous precedent. If we start doing this, how notable does the person that mentions a joke article have to be before we start playing along? Rockpocket 06:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If persistent vandalism is your concern, we have a process for that: WP:SALT. Rockpocket 18:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is there actual evidence of vandalism to the Office Robbery Statistics page itself? From WP:SALT, "...avoid using creation protection as a pre-emptive measure, as it is intended to be a response to actual events." It seems to me like all that has been shown is that this is a popular search term and thus a popular redirect. Keeping it in place will make it just as likely to curb vandalism as salting it. ~ Amory (usertalkcontribs) 01:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Depends on how you wish to define "vandalism". There are 5 examples of joke edits to that specific title (e.g. It squeaks when you bang it. That's what she said.) and more to other variations of the title. There were another half a dozen attempts to cite "examples" of office robberies or other such non-notable trivia for the sake of perpetuating the joke. There are also bloggers out there, if you care to search, that have written about their attempts to create a joke article and castigating the nasty admins (i.e. me) for spoiling their fun. So, yes, there is plenty of actual evidence, it is simply that it is only visible to admins. It was HarlandQPitt's suggestion that it be redirected to curb vandalism. I was simply pointing out SALTing is both the preferred option and the more effective one (unless one intends to request protection for the redirect, which would have the same caveat over preemptive action anyway). Rockpocket 02:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, okay, I see. I was thinking, as you were so good to mention, that it might be more suitable to keep and protect it for a bit (assuming there is recent vandalism - the episode is eight months old) so that it remains useful but unvandalized. That sound good? ~ Amory (usertalkcontribs) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See this is what I don't get. Why? Why would we want to encourage people to "jokingly try to add" anything to namespace. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia. So why would we write about a throwaway one-liner in an encyclopaedic article about that episode? Do we write about any other joke he made in this, or any other episode article? No, so whats so special about this one? Just because it involves Wikipedia doesn't give it any more notability or importance on Wikipedia. The same principle was widely cited at the entirely non notable Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy discussion. At the current rate, Wikipedia is turning into one big self-referential circle jerk. Rockpocket 02:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that was meant to be a suggestion truly worth taking seriously. ~ Amory (usertalkcontribs) 16:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Richard Doherty (military historian)

The result of the discussion was Kept. The article was at that title for 2.5 years. None of the reasons given for deletion outweigh the potential for breaking external linking. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect with no significant links to it. Matt (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Evan Davis (disambiguation)

The result of the discussion was delete. –BLACK FALCON (TALK) 18:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Former disambiguation page with no current purpose since there is currently only 1 notable person by this name. Page history contains some article text, however the article in question was deleted at AfD - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evan Davis (actor) ThaddeusB (talk) 03:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harold Otto Danckwerts

The result of the discussion was Deleted. We have red links for a reason and this seems a perfect case. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect points to a disambiguation page where Harold Otto Danckwerts is mentioned, but there is no article about him. Matt (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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