Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 8

February 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2010

Super Bowl redirects

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 all bar Super Bowl L. --Taelus (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl MMLI Super Bowl MMLIX Redirects for far-future Super Bowls that don't even have a date or location announced yet. In the case of Super Bowl M, it would be very far in the future indeed. Per WP:CRYSTAL, such things are discouraged - we don't have any information on these future Super Bowls at all, so the blue-linked redirects are just confusing, and they might cause readers to assume that the information is somewhere in the target, or ought to be, when it is not. I have no objection to replacing these with an article, along the lines of Super Bowl XLVI, when reliable information becomes available - which will not be for a long time yet. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — Gavia immer (talk) 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least we should be keeping Super Bowl L, which was viewed over 1500 times last year. Surely that means I'm not the only one who finds these redirects useful.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shyam Sunderji Surolia

The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#R3 and WP:CSD#G7. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - product of a quickly self-reverted pagemove to an incorrect name. The name "Shyam Sunderji Surolia" garners the Golden Doughnut Award for having zero Google hits. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Madduck

The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page was created as a redirect to Martin Krafft, which itself was first made a redirect to The Debian System and later deleted per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 6#Martin Krafft. User:Madduck proposed the page for deletion with the comment, "I am not a book." In the previous RfD Madduck said that his name should not redirect to his book. I presume the same argument holds for his nickname. Cnilep (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Redirecting the name of a non-notable author to the article about a notable book they've written is not uncommon as a plausible search term, but if the author does not want this then I see no reason to insist on it. I don't see that the author's nickname as a likely search term for people wanting to find out about the book, as even though it is mentioned [1] these are only incidental mentions. That the author apparently does not want the redirect just reinforces my opinion that Wikipedia doesn't need this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no mention of this term in the target; nor does the target indicate any apparent relation to this term. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. From what I can tell, this is a common enough nickname for the author. The reasons to delete are pretty bad here: "I am not a book" is true, but No Limitations is not a band, a Musical production is not a record producer, and Fay Ray was a dog, not a photographer. Also, I smell sour grapes about the deletion of Krafft's own article. If this redirected to, say, an article about a crime, or a different person, or a company he no longer works for, then I could understand honoring the subject's wish to delete, but it redirects to his own book. Wait, is that the world's smallest violin I hear playing?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Polish anarchy

The result of the discussion was retarget to Anarchism in Poland. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a real, or at least not notable phrase indicating this concept. Unverified at least. Urpunkt☎ 02:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Sandbox/Word Association/

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 No Consensus. The argument is over whether this is plausible, or not. Some see it as plausible, whilst others don't. I doubt consensus would be gained from relisting. --Taelus (talk) 16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful redirect (in fact, it may be a test page): very little traffic, no incoming links except those generated by this nomination, no significant page history, and not a likely search term. In the unlikely event that someone searches for the redirect, he or she will be directed to the target page by the drop-down list in the search function or by the Wikipedia search results page, where the target page will be the first result. (Redirect creator notified using Template:RFDNote) –Black Falcon (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only use I can think of for this is that it gets you to the intended page when using the "go up a directory" tool on something like the Google toolbar, when you've been viewing a subpage (directory/page → directory/ is correct, but on wikis you need to do page/subpage → page). There are several subpages of word association, and I recognise the creator as someone who does play word association games so doing this is plausible. However, this is not needed for searching as detailed above and {{Word Association}} provides a quick link to the target anyway. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this would be a common way of doing this. Many websites end their sites with / so it would be just as common to assume that here. Simply south (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic we should have a redirect from every page that has subpages from titles ending in /, e.g. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/ and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    By that logic, the inadvertent addition of a slash to the search item is not as improbable as one would think... but it's not a reason to add intentional typographical errors to our vast collection of redirects. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether it is probable or improbable in theory is a bit of a moot point, because it is improbably in practice: the target page is viewed ~700 times per month, whereas the redirect receives less than 10 hits per month. In any case, any search for the redirect will bring up the target page as the first result on the search results page and in the drop-down list, so no functionality is gained by keeping it or lost by deleting it. –Black Falcon (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible unintentional typographical error, per my post above. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.