Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 December 4

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

December 4

Scummers and Skates: The Southampton-Portsmouth Rivalry → South Coast derby

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 21:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over-long title, unlikely to be entered in search box, contains mildly pejorative language Qwghlm 23:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It sounds like a title of a book or documentary to me, although I was unable to come up with any non-Wikipedia hits with Google. However, it is mentioned in another article: Southampton_F.C.#Scummers_and_Skates:_The_Southampton-Portsmouth_rivalry. This observation has no bearing on whether to keep or delete, but the other article should be modified to match the consensus here. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 23:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just the title of a (perhaps unpublished?) book and that section header was set by someone who wants to promote it. I've changed it to match the title of South Coast derby. The book itself probably fails WP:BK so I see no reason for inclusion. Qwghlm 09:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Price is Right redirects

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 21:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List

This is a useless redirect title that no one really types a title so ridiculously long like this. --Gh87 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dar-Ape 21:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - this is oviouslly what someone is looking for with these terms, and there is no reason to expect any other article will need these page names --T-rex 04:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete all~~ Actually, these were the result of the pages being renamed[1]. They system automatically creates a redirect from the old name to the new name. ~~This is unlikely to be a search term, there is no relevant history to save, and nothing links to it from within Wikipedia. So, no reason to keep.~~ Koweja 03:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Redirs are harmless and may prevent duplicate article creation. Also there may still be links from other websites. 24.19.35.187 03:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all changed opinion per 24.19 point about inbound links. Koweja 03:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite high support for keeping, many of these were improperly speedied as G6's. This is an abuse of CSD and I would like to advise Gh87, as well as the deleting admins, never to do this again. Philwelch 06:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Camp for troubled teens → Boot camp (correctional)

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to be a search query, no internal links, unlikely to collect any. Created by User:Camp For Troubled Teens Mentor - also a bit questionable. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not an unreasonable search term. Eluchil404 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is a conflict of interest, it's also helpful as a likely search term. Keep. TTV|talk|contribs|email 22:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

WT:US → Talk:United States

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confusing cross-namespace redirect; as WP:US redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts, I'd expect this to either not exist or to redirect to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts. I'd recommend deleting or retargeting. --ais523 13:11, 4 December 2006 (U T C)

Question why not just retarget it now? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As for redirecting, if you look at the amount of discussion that takes place on the project's talk page, it's hardly frequent enough to merit a shortcut. —INTRIGUEBLUE (talk|contribs) 08:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Sadly, No" → Sadly, No

The result of the debate was speedily deleted as a broken redirect by Daveydweeb. --ais523 17:13, 4 December 2006 (U T C)

deleted article timecop 14:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

IBASIC programming language → IBasic

The result of the debate was deleted by Eagle 101. --Gh87 06:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBasic article was deleted. Mikeblas 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag replaced with {{db-r1}} for broken redirect. timrem 04:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Talk:IBASIC programming language → IBasic

The result of the debate was deleted by Eagle 101. --Gh87 06:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IBasic article was deleted. Mikeblas 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tag replaced with {{db-r1}} for broken redirect. timrem 04:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2006_December_4&oldid=616541909"