Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 February 13

Camilla, The Duchess of Hell → Camilla, The Duchess of Cornwall
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 18:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC) pointless personal attack; I cannot believe this has existed unchallenged for a month now. Speedy delete. Doops | talk 18:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Wikipedia sucks → Criticism of Wikipedia
The result of the debate was one deleted (I HATE WIKIPEDIA) and the other kept. If the deleted one is created again, it can be made a protected title. -- JLaTondre 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC) POV'ish redirects as per WP:RDR. "Criticism" is not. Delete and protect.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   17:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia sucks
 * I HATE WIKIPEDIA
 * Delete and add to Protected titles. --- RockMFR 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I HATE WIKIPEDIA and protect if you want to. Keep Wikipedia sucks as a likely search term. --- RockMFR 18:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Definitely Delete per above reason. Alex43223Talk 10:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Not very good and is offensive to wikipedia. Telly   addict Editor review! 16:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect. POV.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:56, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep both. Reviewing the pages' histories, it's very clear that both these pages have repeatedly attracted vandals and rants and that they will continue to do so if the pages are left blank.  Given the choice between a protected redirect (which really is only mildly detracting as these things go) and a deletedpage template (which everyone finds frustrating), I'll take the redirect.  Rossami (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Protected titles. Besides, creating an invalid redirect just to avoid using the protection template is pointless.  Michaelas10   (Talk)   11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the "sucks" version. Redirects are meant to be an aid to common search terms, and "XYZ sucks" is a common way of expressing criticism.  Since Criticism of Wikipedia exists, we might as well help people find it.  However, "I HATE WIKIPEDIA" (all caps)is an uncommon search term so has minimal value as a redirect. &mdash;Dgiest c 08:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Klenova → Klenová
The result of the debate was Converted to disambig. -- JLaTondre 13:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC) Causes confusion in search for Mariya Vasil’yevna Klenova based on last name only Challengerdeep 04:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment perhaps best to convert it to a disambiguation page, rather than delete outright. David Underdown 12:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Deleted (db-attack). -- JLaTondre 12:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Josh waldman → Gay
no apparent reason other than attack Proofreader J-Man 07:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Josh waldman → Boy George
no apparent connection Proofreader J-Man 07:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

I can't grok how there were two redirects from Josh waldman — Randall Bart 21:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It was a malformed page. It had two redirect statements. Only the first one would have done anything. The nominator only needed to list one (or simply tag it db-attack for speedy deletion). -- JLaTondre 22:16, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The result of the debate was Deleted (db-redirnone). -- JLaTondre 12:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Scuba fetish → Scuba fetishism
The target article is deleted, and in the page history of the existing redirect is a bad article that should have been deleted. YechielMan 08:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Side Of Phobos → The Dark Side of Phobos
Redirects to a deleted page; there is no other target available. YechielMan 08:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Rise Of The Star → Rise of the Star
Redirect target is a deleted article. YechielMan 08:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Note. I wasn't aware that these can be speedied under CSD R1. I will use that from now on. YechielMan 08:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FOAD → ISP contact information
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Aside from having no intrinsic connection to its target, it is uncivil to tell users to "fuck off and die". szyslak (t, c) 23:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete; WP:ISPS points to the same place and seems a better choice of acronym – Qxz 20:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Ambivalent Weak keep. I hate to delete something that's being used.  ISP contact information actually lists it as a shortcut.  It's an easy shortcut to remember.  The phone number of Dial-a-prayer in Los Angeles used to be 213-GOD-DAMN.  Nobody ever had trouble remembering that number.  Then the Los Angeles Times ran an article about funny phone numbers, and they were shamed into changing it.   I haven't known the number of Dial-a-prayer since.  Has this shortcut been used abusively?  If not it's more useful to keep it. — Randall Bart 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sorry Randall, the redirect is just not appropriate...except maybe for WP:BJ. YechielMan 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as inappropriate and no obvious connection to target. WP:ISPS seems easier to remember anyway. WjBscribe 03:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Redirect does have a connection to it's target, in that it is implying off-wiki action and is uncivil. &mdash;Dgiest c 08:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)