Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 3
March 3
edit
Delete. It is the only redirect to a sonata by Scarlatti and no page uses it. Tomaxer (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Delete. An unnecessary redirect within the AMA pages. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep in some form. It has significant history --Rumping (talk) 01:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete. An unnecessary redirect to the defunct AMA main page. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Nominating for deletion. The redirect is a typing error linking to the defunct AMA main page. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 13:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Nominating America Jr. for deletion: Potentially offensive redirect for readers living in Canada. Obscure and non-sense synonym, and not an established term: only use in mainstream media is that Homer once referred to it in the Simpsons. The only reasonable use for this is to make a joke against Canadians. Aeon17x (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Definitely disparagement of Canada, and I don't think anyone would make serious use of it. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - not only disparaging, but ambiguous as well when one considers that not everyone considers "America" to be synonymous with The United States. --mwalimu59 (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - per nominator. Just a terrible redirect. Versus22 talk 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - I previously re-created the page after it was improperly deleted without explanation or an RFD. Also, at the time I had a major media reference that subsequently went stale. Google research shows the redir is valueless now, and should definitely get the axe. NOTE: "potentially offensive" is a really bad reason (per [[WP:CENSOR]) to delete anything. We don't censor redirects or articles or anything else simply to reduce the potential for offense; either something adds value to the encyclopedia, or it doesn't. In this case I fully agree it doesn't. Bullzeye contribs 09:02, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - On my first reason I followed rule #3 on the RFD deletion rules, which noted that offensive redirects can be nominated for deletion. Although now that I re-read it, I have to admit I missed the part where it says it's only a valid condition if the subject of the redirect is not discussed in the article. The way it's worded right now it seems the latter section of rule #3 talks about an exception when in fact it is the primary prerequisite for that rule.
- I suppose rule #3 should be rewritten to take into account WP:CENSOR and further clarify when an offensive redirect could be deleted. --Aeon17x (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Joke redirect which is not useful. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not useful as use of term is potentially offensive, not obvious and not discussed in target. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. Humorous but not enough =p. §hawnpoo 23:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Nominated for speedy deletion by Voxii (talk · contribs) for the following reason: "misspelled, unnecessary and unlikely redirect. "paulanuk" should be "Palahniuk" and the disambig isn't needed nor does it fit the naming conventions". Cannot apply WP:R3 because it's not recent, thus lisitng it here for the nominating user. SoWhy 09:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. As you say, not recent, but it's definitely an implausible typo. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete implausible typo of author's name used as a disambiguation term. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete as an implausible typo or misnomer not recently created and thus not eligible for speedy deletion. Redirect points to a disambiguation page. Dravecky (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that this is a useful term for anything at the target. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - No doctors listed there, plus it redirects to the disam. page. Versus22 talk 00:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Delete - appears to be an on-air persona adopted by Michael Savage (commentator), however the term is not currently used in his article, and I don't see an obvious reliable source. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Delete as a not accepted expression. It is a novel and very obscure synonym for late 2000s recession and not useful. "Greater Depression" is a misleading allusion to Great Depression. Furthermore, it is a fictional term from the 1991-RPG Dark Conspiracy, see there. --Emkaer (talk) 16:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Disambiguate between use in various works of fiction such as Dark Conspiracy and Wide Awake (novel); misleading as a term for current recession. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Hi, there already was a deletion request that was decided to keep the redirect. But I think it should be deleted because it is completely wrong. Manthey Racing is a private motorsport team that competes races on Porsche (see de:Manthey Racing). It is something completely different than the engagement of the company Porsche that is described in Porsche in motorsport. You don't find any information about Manthey Racing there. So I see no reason for this redirect and I think it should be deleted. You can compare this case for example with a redirect from Michael Ballack to Chelsea F.C. because he plays soccer there. Do you see the point? --87.167.74.30 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - nothing has changed since the previous RfD. "Manthey Racing" is still present in the target article. Analogy mentioned by nom is an invalid one as Michael Ballack is a standalone article; Manthey Racing is not (in fact, the previous RfD was closed as "keep" with the words "Feel free to convert into a stub." There is nothing preventing doing that now). B.Wind (talk) 05:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - article discusses subject which is relevant to the article topic; may be a candidate for its own article. --Rogerb67 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)