February 18
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 18, 2010
Wikipedia:John R. Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy
- 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 as an unhelpful and unlikely search term, with no particular justification for a cross-namespace redirect. ~ mazca talk 09:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-namespace redirect. Misleading, as I'm pretty sure the middle initial is wrong. I don't think it's particularly plausible a search term, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 22:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - while this is an old redirect (2005), there is no history as this (misnamed) title. The redirect was created by a move from project space to namespace, but Seigenthaler's middle initial is L., not R. Plus it's a cross-namespace redirect from project space to mainspace - anybody entering this title (a most highly unlikely event) would expect a historical project space page. Not this time. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. I can't see how this is useful in any way. –Grondemar 07:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not a bad CNR since it is inbound to the mainspace, but it doesn't seem a particularly useful search term... or "shortcut". Standard users won't be venturing into the project space like this, and I suspect those that do can find the information they are looking for with the search tool. --Taelus (talk) 01:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Chubby
- 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 boldly dabified after removal of RfD tag (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure 'chubby' redirecting to 'obesity' is necessarily accurate. 'Chubby' would be more likely to mean 'overweight' rather than 'obese'. Also there are the articles Roy Chubby Brown, Chubby Checker and Chub (gay culture), and 'Chub' itself is a disambiguation page. I want to feel like a girl (talk)
- Retarget to Chub as a form of the word. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note This discussion was initiated by a now-blocked vandal and is probable disruption. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On this one thing, I'd actually agree with the vandal: describing someone as "chubby" is usually meant to convey that they're carrying a bit of extra weight, not that they're genuinely obese (a term which is not synonymous with all "fat" people). And I'd also note that reviewing "What links here", two of the three mainspace links are actually expecting a soda pop brand from the Caribbean, rather than a discussion of human body shape. This title should indeed be leading to a disambiguation page rather than to obesity. Redirect to chub per Hammer. Bearcat (talk) 18:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Retargeting to Chub seems inappropriate, I don't think most people searching for this term are going to be expecting a page full of fish. With the search engine, the first two results are Overweight and then Chub (gay culture), followed closely by Chubby Checker. I don't think any of the above terms should be the sole redirect target; it makes more sense to throw the result to the search engine and let someone create a unique DAB page later for Chubby if they so desire. –Grondemar 20:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The "chubby" items can be added to the dab page — it's not as though we're stuck with redirecting it to a page that can only ever be a list of fish. Bearcat (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. Addition of ((rfd)) tag by nom was reverted in good faith by User:NawlinWiki. In addition, I shall dabify this page because of the multiple uses of "Chubby" in Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dab page is now up, with more to be added ASAP. B.Wind (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Walter Richards (television character)
Short and distort
- 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 Convert to Stub/Disambig, currently converted to a disambig, with no prejudice to conversion to a stub so that the term may cover both potential targets. --Taelus (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rework. The anchor that this redirect pointed to on the target article no longer exists in the current text of the article. DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- should now point to Securities fraud#Short selling abuses wherein the term is defined. Mangoe (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, nice. I couldn't find the phrase anywhere in the original target article. So I haven't done many RFDs. Do I just go ahead and do it, or is there some sort of grace period? --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've relisted this as there is not a consensus about where this should be retargetted to.Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note. The two proposed anchors are virtually identical in content (although the first has a better citation). This indicates to me that it would be better to convert the redirect into a stub article and place ((main)) atop both of the indicated sections. Should an admin wish to close this as "stubify" I shall be more than happy to replace the redirect with a stub based on both indicated sections. B.Wind (talk) 01:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Concordistan
- 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 --Taelus (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The page history includes an assertion that this university is nicknamed "Concordistan" due to a large population of Islamic students, but there is no mention of this in the target article and it is not verified by any reliable source. Google does turn up a few disparaging references, but nothing that I would consider a reliable source. R'n'B (call me Russ) 17:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced POV. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as unsourced neologism. PKT(alk) 19:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.