Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 26

May 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 26, 2008

WPP:TV → Wikipedia:WikiProject Television

The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the WPP namespace shortcuts have been deprecated. Besides, the Television WikiProject already has the WP:TV shortcut. — Parent5446 ^{(t n e l)} 15:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've basicly never seen a WPP: link before, and one is much more likely to search for a WP:link, which are automaticly directed to Wikipedia: anyway. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:24, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. While I can understand that "WPP" could stand for "Wikipedia project" (one could similarly argue for "WPWP:TV"), the WP:TV redirect makes it unnecessary. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WPP didn't really catch on like WP and WT did. -- Ned Scott 05:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

German_Goo_Girls → Pornography

The result of the debate was delete and salt. VegaDark (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of a non-notable pornography site. Not sure if people is going to search on wikipedia for the achievements of th ewebsite, and not sure if this is the correct target anyways. Enric Naval (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article at this site was originally deleted as a result of this deletion discussion. The pagehistory shows that it was recreated and redeleted multiple times. Turning the page into a redirect might inhibit the recreation of the deleted content but given the history, I somehow doubt it in this particular case. The redirect does not appear to have been created in close proximity with the recent recreations. Delete and consider returning the page to protected {{deletedpage}} status. Rossami (talk) 17:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rossami. I'm not sure about whether the page should be salted, as he's suggesting, as it just might be notable enough to sustain an article by itself. (Yes I know that's highly improbable, especially since the original article has been deleted a total of 6 times to date with each one basically being on A7 grounds.) Tabercil (talk) 22:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete... this would be akin to redirecting an A7 biography to Human. Not an exact analogy, but this is a pretty illogical target. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt per Rossami's reasons.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pass the salt, please, and delete quickly - our category-creating friend seems to have done this to make a point as categories and articles started by him have been steadily been deleted over the past couple of weeks. He refuses to acknowledge anything posted on his talk page - and blanks it with regularity after it accumulates warnings about impending deletions and various other warnings. See editor's talk page history. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 02:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeaneology → Strong Medicine

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word does not appear on target, and does not appear on Strong Medicine (novel) either. I assume it's a non-notable term used on the drama or on the novel. Enric Naval (talk) 13:42, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to google, the word "jeaneology" is associated with the denim article of clothing. I can't find any reference that links the word to this piece of fiction. Unless a credible link can be explained, delete as misleading retarget to Genealogy as suggested below - that's less implausible than the alternatives. Rossami (talk) 17:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as an unrelated term and possible nonsense redirect. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:06, May 27, 2008 (UTC)
Delete or retarget to Genealogy as a possible misspelling (someone hears the word, has no idea how it is spelled, types it in the search bar spelled that way- Implausible? Not so sure). VegaDark (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - retargeting to genealogy (or geneology) overlooks commercial use of the neologism "jeaneology" in the garment field. Deletion is a better option until the clothing term gains traction. B.Wind (talk) 22:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per B.Wind's comment. Also, it's not at all a likely typo for "Genealogy", it has two different characters, and one extra character --Enric Naval (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

El Con Plaza → El Con Mall

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect created by banned user meaning to create confusion and venue has never been known under the Plaza name. Taking here after a db-typo attempt was declined. Nate • (chatter) 05:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the mall has never had that name. It appears that the former account User:Elladog had been doing similar WP:POVFORKs in order to give different names to stuff [1] --Enric Naval (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that this page should not have been speedy-deleted as a typo. It may, however, qualify as vandalism if the pattern of disruptive edits can be substantiated. Rossami (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - User:Supermall is quite clearly User:Elladog (or a meatpuppet?), who has an edit history replete with vandalism. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The weather in London → London#Climate

The result of the debate was Keep as soft redirect. VegaDark (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't we been over this? See [2], Special:WhatLinksHere/The weather in London, and WP:STUPID. —Chowbok ☠ 04:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: For the associated talk page, see MfD, DRV and ongoing MFD --Enric Naval (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlikely, unencyclopedic search term. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Treating this as if it were any given redirect, I say Keep. Redirects are cheap and the target article makes sense. -- Ned Scott 06:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also support the soft redirect option. -- Ned Scott 05:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it a red link, dammit The reason that the talk page was kept was because it was a historical red link. All those pages on "what links here" are examples of red links. This redirect just breaks all sort of old pages that show untentional redlinks, like this 2006 AfD or this 2006 editing help guide, now the redlink examples are appearing as blue links. Also, it was probably originally chosen because it's an unlikely search term so no people would be affected by using it as an intentional red link. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notice that the rationale of making a redirect to avoid deletion of the orphaned talk page is faulty since the talk page was already preserved once at MfD as such, and the ongoing MfD has not still closed and it could close as "keep to prevent people from re-creating a historical red link". Trying to shortcircuit the MfD with a redirect is just delaying a final resolution of this (yeah, I know it's a good faith attempt to end the drama, but it's breaking old stuff). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is no longer actively used as a redlink. Anyone on the project who knows about this or encounters it on some archive will surely already understand the concept of redlinks and will understand that things on Wikipedia change over time. This was a poor choice for an example redlink. There is no need to live with the mistakes of the past. I can't really say anything on the topic of this redirect's usefulness. However, deleting it solely on the grounds of maintaining it as a redlink is a pretty weak reason for deletion. --- RockMFR 16:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redelete and turn it back into an intentional redlink. It's use as a redlink is part of Wikipedia's history. References to it are scattered all over the project's history. The fiasco about the Talk page is irrelevant. Rossami (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC) (see my conditional update below)[reply]
Keep - see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:The weather in London 2. This is no longer used as an intentional red link. Neıl 龱 20:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redelete - my preference would be in line with that of Rossami. Alternatively, remove the redirect, include a dab link to London#Climate, add a historical tag and an explanation of what the page was originally intended to illustrate - an inappropriate choice of title, used as part of the education program for new editors. There is no harm in keeping a bit of history around this place. It helps to link the "generations" of Wikipedians together, educates new users in some of the challenges facing our earliest editors, and demonstrates some of the innovative problem-solving that is one of the hallmarks of Wikipedia. Risker (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Neil, et al. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A soft redirect plus a historical note, as suggested by Risker above, seems like the best compromise offered so far. In fact, I've gone ahead and implemented it — this should do no harm, as the RfD notice was breaking the normal redirect anyway. Feel free to revert if the consensus is to keep the page as a simple redirect after all. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This new soft-redirect plus explanation is not as good, in my opinion, as leaving it as a redirect but it's better than any other alternative suggested so far. I can live with that version. Rossami (talk) 00:58, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The soft redirect option seems like a great compromise to me as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Soft redirect plus explanatory note, as it is at the moment - this seems to be the best compromise solution, explaining why it is occasionally linked from apparently unrelated Wikipedia pages, but allowing someone who is actually looking for 'the weather in London' to find the right information. Terraxos (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know...I don't think they're this concerned about the weather in London over in London itself. Anyways, soft redirect looks like a good way to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UsaSatsui (talk • contribs)

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

Country Tracks chart → Hot Country Songs

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No pages link to it. The chart has never gone by the name "Country Tracks chart" (it was once "Hot Country Singles & Tracks", which is kind of close, but still seems an unlikely search term). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything that's changed since the last time this redirect was discussed (2007 August 12 closed as "keep"). Keep for the same reasons that were given in the last discussion. Rossami (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as abridgement of former name of chart. B.Wind (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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