Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 December 9

December 9
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on December 9, 2007

Washing Machine (album) → Washing Machine
The result of the debate was Move request. This nomination is a move request and those belong at WP:RM. Nominator is welcome to list it there. -- JLaTondre 02:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC) I am requesting that this redirect be deleted, so that the album article Washing Machine can be moved/renamed to occupy this article name at Washing Machine (album).

There is a common housebold appliance that has existed for over a century known as the Washing machine, and there is some pop music group that decided to make an album in the last few years named after the appliance. And yet is very easy for wikipedia searches to go to the album rather than the appliance because the difference is only the capitalization of the letter 'M' in 'machine'. This is tiny naming difference degrades the value of Wikipedia for finding relevant content, and in the last five months no one has been able to justify on the album's talk page why the album should not be demoted to Washing Machine (album) to provide better article disambiguation.

And actually it WAS named that two years ago. I do not understand why it was permitted to be renamed to Washing Machine in the first place.

I'm sure the appliance doesn't have fans and groupies screaming for it like the band, but it doesn't help Wikipedia's credibility for this obscure album to be elevated to be a direct search hit competing with the common household appliance on the basis of a single capitalized letter.

DMahalko (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Show change → help : show preview
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 20:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Another cross-namespace redirect, and I don't think this one's very useful. Wouldn't 'show change' probably refer to the 'diff' function rather than the 'show preview' one? In either case, it's a possible subject for an encyclopaedic article, so shouldn't be a redirect to a help page. Terraxos (talk) 22:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. CNR that I doubt anyone would use anyway.  4.21.209.231 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete CNR; unintuitive. –Pomte 00:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a load off your mind → defecation
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Heh. Implausible search. delldot  talk  12:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Amusing but pointless. Terraxos (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. –Pomte 00:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee controversies → Mike Huckabee
The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Redirect created when a POV fork was created, then merged. No articles link to this page. I'm also including Mike huckabee controversies since that redirects to Mike Huckabee controversies, and also has no articles linking to it. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 16:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment: could these not simply be retargeted to Mike Huckabee? Or would that just bring back the 'POV fork' issue, which is the reason they were deleted in the first place? Terraxos (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well nothing in the mainspace links to either page. The page was created (as a POV fork) and merged back hours later.  ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 00:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep because it documents the fork and remerger. These kind of content disputes are not at all unusual, especially for articles on political candidates in an election year.  If you delete it, someone will just recreate it sooner or later.  If you leave the redirect and its history, you create a clear precedent that this should not again be created as a stand-alone article.  The title is not particularly pejorative given that there is a "controversies" section in the target article.  Rossami (talk) 16:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rossami. A sectioned redirect to Mike Huckabee might also be good here. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * keep aside from Rossami's comments we need to preserve the redirect to comply with the GFDL (unless we do a history merge). JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge For consistency sake, it should be merged. See discussions of and histories of mergers, for Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani controversies articles.  These controversies articles were merged into the main bio articles Dogru144 (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Term Paper → Term paper
The result of the debate was speedy delete per request of sole author (CSD G7). WjBscribe 03:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC) I am not sure about this, I believe that this redirect is unnecessary and will not be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  Marlith  T / C  02:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Redirects to compensate for capitalization variations are normal. Remember that some of our navigations are case-sensitive even though the search engine is not.  We don't preemptively create redirects like this but once created, it's rarely worth the effort to delete them.  In this case, however, you created the redirect and then a few days later nominated it for deletion yourself.  You could have just tagged it with db-author and had it speedy-deleted without the need for discussion here.  Rossami (talk) 16:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)