Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 1

Shitty little country → Daniel Bernard
The result of the debate was Kept. Phrase discussed at target article. -- JLaTondre 01:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Highly unlikely search term, offensive term in relation to Israel. Being used as a source of contention and pride by banned user:  FeloniousMonk 02:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. Was going to say delete, but since it's a banned user leftover I made it speedy. I can see why the redirect was made but it is in fact very unnecessary. -- Wizardman 04:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Just because a banned user liked it, doesn't mean it's a bad redir. The guy, Daniel Bernard, lost his job for uttering those three words and they made him world famous. Also, note that the user praised as being the creator is not in fact the actual creator; this is just banned user trouble making. -- Kendrick7talk 23:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - Unlikely search term, and a possibility for debate whether it would redirect to Israel or to Daniel Bernard. Because of NPOV violations, best to kill it before it starts.--WaltCip 00:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * NPOV violations? Before it starts? This re-direct has always pointed to Daniel Bernard and has never been touched since its creation in November 2005 until the RfD tag was added. If you believe otherwise, then you have been trolled. I'll put it on my watch list if it makes you feel better. It's a very likely search term for anyone who remembers the incident asking themselves the question "who was that idiot who lost his job cause he called Israel a shitty little country?" Far fewer will ask themselves "What was that phrase Daniel Bernard uttered in describing Israel which cost him his ambassadorship?" because Daniel Benard would be a stub at best if not for this incident. Isn't the point of redirects to help people find information from what they remember? -- Kendrick7talk 01:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per Kendrick7. --- RockMFR 02:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - if someone else uses that term to refer to some other country, are we going to make a disambiguation page of all countries that have been referred to in that fashion? BigDT 03:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. These are the words that made this person famous, and they're mentioned in the target article's lead.  I can see someone finding a reference to the words without explanation and wanting to find it on Wikipedia.  A banned user's likes or dislikes don't affect the notability or value of the subject. delldot | talk 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  10:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's far too general a term to redirect to one person who used the term about one country. Guettarda 14:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete "shitty little country" does not refer to Daniel Bernard, so it shouldn't redirect there. -- Renesis (talk) 18:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable phrase that redirects to article on the coiner of the phrase, explaining the phrase's history. Philwelch 00:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Are we trying to start a trend of associating quotes as redirects with articles? Because if you are, that's not a good sign. It will cause WAY too many problems. It's also very unencyclopedic. Seriously, would you look up "shitty little country" in an encyclopedia to find information on a specific person? Keeping this would seriously damage Wikipedia's reputation as a reputable source.--WaltCip 00:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You might look it up to research the controversy itself, since the controversy centered around that particular phrase. Philwelch 01:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since "shitty little country" is a redirect, it does not serve that purpose.--WaltCip 11:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak Keep - I was actually going to vote delete, and planned to say "This phrase can be used by anyone, about anywhere. Are we going to have a disambiguation page to find every country that's every been called a "shitty little country" by someone?" However, when I looked this up on Google, I saw that nearly all the first five pages of search results deal with this exact use of the phrase, by this person. If the use of this phrase by him has been so widely discussed, then I think we need to acknowledge that somehow, a redirect seems to do that. An alternative would be to have a "shitty little country" article which describes just the controversy, then have a "daniel bernard" article which describes everything else about him, and links to the SLC article for discussion of that particular incident. However, I don't think there's enough content right now to justify that approach. Quack 688 17:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. NPOV means that we act neutrally, not that we only keep neutral information. The use of this phrase happened and it is mentioned at the target article. It aids searching as mentioned above and goes directly to the article that explains it. Redirecting it to Israel would be atrociously wrong.  Big Nate 37 (T) 14:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow-up note: couldn't "shitty little country" be expanded into its own article covering the controversy? Philwelch 08:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Since it's the only thing that Daniel Bernard is really known for (as far as I know) that would mean zero expandability beyond stub status, unless Bernard's article was merged into it. So I think there should be only one article; whether one redirects to the other or vice versa is of little consequence in my opinion.  Big Nate 37 (T) 16:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed - so what's the Wikipedia standard if a person's only known for a single controversy? Do you write an article about that controversy and redirect the person's bio to it, or do you do it the other way around? Quack 688 00:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I think that is going beyond the scope of an RfD.  Big Nate 37 (T) 18:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can keep the status quo for now, but if it's decided that all the article content belong in "shitty little country", not in "daniel bernard", then this redirect would need to be reversed. Quack 688 18:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is firmly in the domain of Requested moves.  Big Nate 37 (T) 00:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, no argument there. Quack 688 01:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - highly inappropriate, offendsive, no point in this redirect existing Kamope | userpage | talk  |  contributions 21:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

'phone → telephone
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 01:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC) "phone" is never written with an initial apostrophe. Voortle 01:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. Seems like someone was just too lazy to type telephone :P -- Wizardman 04:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. totally obvious. speedy deletion?--  ExpImp talk con 00:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless redirect. Philwelch 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. POINTLESS redirect.--WaltCip 11:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Harmless but not needed. Phatom87 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Kamope | userpage | talk  |  contributions 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Uncylclopedia → Uncyclopedia
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 01:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC) No links use this as a redirect. Unneeded typo redirect.Unlikely typo (I think). Will Mak  050389  01:22, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per small chance of making that kind of typo. -- Wizardman 04:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unlikely typo. Iced Kola  00:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless redirect. Philwelch 00:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Stop with the "harmless" votes - A harmless vote could be used against any redirect, but in truth, it is illogical. The whole content of Wikipedia is supposed to be that of an encyclopedia, not a "harmless" indiscriminate database. And yet, there is one *harmful* redirect (SLC) which you support keeping as well.
 * On that note, delete as pointless.--WaltCip 11:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Our mission is to create well-written, neutral content, and to help people find it. The existence of this redirect does not harm that mission—rather, it aids in that mission by redirecting people who make this particular typo to the article they undoubtedly wanted. Redirects that are counterintuitive or counterfactual are harmful, to give two good examples. Philwelch 08:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - very simalar, may confuse some users by thinking they got redirected by the same name of the article Kamope | userpage | talk  |  contributions 21:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Move Log → Special:Log/move
The result of the debate was Deleted. Redirects to special pages don't work. -- JLaTondre 01:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect. Was, in fact, already deleted once before after a rfd in July. No links except from that rfd. &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as cross-namespace redirect. Iced Kola  00:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)