January 6
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 6, 2010
Leo Frankburger
The result of the discussion was
Delete ~
Amory (u • t • c) 01:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
Extremely unlikely search term, given the misspelling. In addition, I have proposed Leopold Frankenberger, Sr. for deletion, as his only claim to notability is his (rumoured) great-grandson. If this page is kept, it should redirect to Leopold Frankenberger, Jr. Cnilep (talk) 20:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Implausible, unhelpful. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, no one who knew to be looking for a person this obscure would so implausibly misspell the last name. Heck, a redirect to Frank Burge is about as plausible. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree: a plausible search term. However, since the article is probably going to be deleted the redirect should be deleted too. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Frankenberger, Sr.
The result of the discussion was
Delete ~
Amory (u • t • c) 01:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
This page is an unlikely search term. In addition, I have proposed Leopold Frankenberger, Sr. for deletion, as his only claim to notability is his (rumoured) great-grandson. Cnilep (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Implausible. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, implausible. I find the hit graph funny though. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete An obscure person not likely to be searched for, less likely still in this form, and the article appears to be heading for deletion anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Βeta
The result of the discussion was
Delete ~
Amory (u • t • c) 01:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
The words "beta" and "mu" here begin not in B and M, but in β (beta) and μ (mu). Similar to the nomination below, except that the letters are being used with the words to which they belong. But since the letters "beta" (βήτα) and "mu" (μυ) have been transliterated into English, the failure to transliterate the first letter is just as preposterous as Аugust 2, et al., below. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Redirects for β, β oxidation, β-1 adrenergic receptor and μ-law algorithm (and any minor variants thereof) can be argued on their own case, which of course are not those being proposed here; to disguise a Greek letter as a Latin one is simple deviousness. There may be cases where there is genuine confusion, e.g. X-square distribution (that's Latin X, not Greek chi) might want to redirect to chi-square distribution, but again, those can be handled case by case; I don't think these would necessarily foul of a rule of thumb not to disguise greek (or other alphabet) letters as English just because their glyphs are similar. On a similar note, '1" (number one) and "l" (lower case letter ell) look identical in Courier New at some point sizes, so perhaps that is one to look out for; similar tricks are quite often played of course to defeat searching, but become easier to spot as fonts become better rendered, for example it is rare now (for me, anywaz) not to be able to distinguish "0" (zero) from "O" (upper case letter oh). Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this seems like a pretty nonsense redirect. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per arguments at "August 2". Cnilep (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, per nominator. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all Difficult to think of a good reason for creating these, and they are very unlikely to be used as search terms. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Аugust 2
The result of the discussion was
Delete ~
Amory (u • t • c) 01:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
Pure deviousness. Each of these redirects begins with a letter of the Cyrillic or Greek alphabet which resembles, but is not the same as, the Latin letter it has replaced. — the Man in Question (in question) 07:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Si Trew (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Еkaterina Rubleva and Еkaterina Kozyreva, which I created because they were used. Еkaterina Rubleva still has an incoming link, as an example of this being used. Kolindigo (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Its use was undoubtedly due to a copy and paste of the original articles before they were moved to the proper spelling. I have fixed that link. Remember, these are not alternate transliterations we are discussing here—they are the LACK OF a transliteration (and in many cases something much sillier). — the Man in Question (in question) 15:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No, its use was due to a figure skating results page generated by the Figure Skating Federation of Russia using that character when spelling that name. The biographical articles have always been correctly spelled. Kolindigo (talk) 23:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Cekcek. Despite of it is not used, this speling is one of transliteration ways of this cousine and would be usefull if one doesn't exactly knows what kind of spelling is used in wikipedia. --Üñţïf̣ļëŗ (see also:ә? Ә!) 15:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Understand it is NOT transliterated—"Cekcek" (what you have written) would be a transliteration, and I have not nominated that for deletion. "Сekcek" (the nominated entry), on the other hand, does not begin with a cee. — the Man in Question (in question) 15:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It took me the longest time to figure out what is going on here. These titles are written in more than one character set, possibly as the result of an error, possibly as a devious joke. In either case, they are not needed and should be deleted to discourage the creation of similar pages. Cnilep (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Whoever created these should be sternly disciplined: there is no way in the world any one could do this by accident. The only way to create these is to go out of your way and use the other typeset on purpose. On the other hand, it is almost impossible to spot the substituted letters without copying over to an application that can recognise those typesets. Someone is either playing a prank or deliberately deceiving us. Either way, this is not acceptable behaviour. --Jubilee♫clipman 19:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum - It seems that some of these were created by accident when someone transliterated the original article title but forgot/overlooked the first letter (Аkula (pop artist) being a case in point). I stand by my comment otherwise. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see how that could come about. Often when selecting a link or text in a browser, if one selects the whole word then it likes to select the white space around it. I frequently, thus, only select but exclude the first letter, to avoid this behaviour, then insert the first letter once I have pasted it. If, combined with this, the editor is using a Cyrillic keyboard, it could be overlooked that letters that have similar glyphs have not been transliterated. I agree the majority are probably a deliberate wind-up, but I do see how this could come about accidentally. Si Trew (talk) 09:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all, per nominator. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. None of them is likely to be used as a search term. At best they are pointless, at worst potentially confusing. The ones which begin with an English word (e.g. Νovember 27) are just silly, and while it is possible to conceive a good faith reason for creating them, the likelihood of their being used is remote. As for those which are based on transliterations, while they may not be quite so silly, there does not seem to be any reason at all for keeping them. Of the two "keep"s above, the one for "Cekcek" seems to be based on a misunderstanding (not realising that the whole point is that the initial letter was a Cyrillic letter Ess and not a Roman letter Cee). The only ones which have been given any reasonable justification for existing are the two beginning with "Еkaterina", but neither of these is really sufficiently likely to be used in searching to justify keeping them. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
DAR-bee-shur
The result of the discussion was
Delete ~
Amory (u • t • c) 01:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
Created by the same two users who created most of the IPA articles below, except these ones are in pronunciation respelling for English, not IPA. Same rationale as below. — the Man in Question (in question) 05:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Si Trew (talk) 09:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete
most, keep two - The last two redirects in this discussion (Sabioon and Sabieen) are common alternative spellings of Sabian. The others should be deleted, but these two should be kept. Neelix (talk) 17:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right, and I have removed the last two. — the Man in Question (in question) 18:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nominator. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pointless respellings. --Jubilee♫clipman 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
ɑ̃sjɛ̃ ʁeʒim
Χylophone
The result of the discussion was
Delete ~
Amory (u • t • c) 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
The "χ" at the beginning is the Greek letter chi, not an ex. Nonsense/vandalism. — the Man in Question (in question) 03:16, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Ʒ as in beige=beɪʒ
The result of the discussion was
Delete ~
Amory (u • t • c) 01:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
Preposterous. Nonsense use of IPA as an explanation. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nominator. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 03:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. Unlikely search term, Ʒ → Ezh (letter) already, and Voiced postalveolar fricativeis linked from there in the first sentence of the lead. Si Trew (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - There's a 3,629/1 chance of this being searched for. Actually I just made that up. It's probably even higher. Very unlikely, almost nonsense, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 16:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, I think that's 1/3,629 you mean. 3,629/1 would make it the most popular page on Wikipedia. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.