Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 16

CDC Virus → Adenovirus serotype 14
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 12:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Not likely search term for this target: not specific, neither the formal nor informal name for it. -- DMacks (talk) 22:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. This was a very poor article on adenovirus serotype 14, whose author apparently did not even know the name of the virus. Instead of being nominated for deletion, it was made into a redirect, which is questionable because it makes no sense to redirect that title to the Ad14 article. --Ginkgo100talk 22:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete bad name. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Arrow redirects
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 12:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC) These characters do not exist. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * ➗ → Arrow (symbol)
 * ➖ → Arrow (symbol)
 * ➕ → Arrow (symbol)
 * If they didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to post them here. They are Unicode characters reserved for use as Dingbat arrows.  ➳   Quin 02:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they're reserved, which means that 1. they do not show up as anything (so they're not arrows and at least the destination is wrong), and 2. are missing from most character maps (so it's highly unlikely fopr someone to search for this character). -- Prince Kassad (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So what? Are they harming anything?  Are they in anyway misleading?  Because they might be helpful to those few people with character maps which do display them.  Rossami (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are misleading, because they make people think these are actual arrows/dingbats, when in fact they're not. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 12:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If somebody diligently puts this character into the search box, what else could they possibly be looking for? – Luna Santin  (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple: the "this article doesn't exist" message, so they know this character does not exist. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 10:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So you admit there's no ambiguity, this is the only potential target. – Luna Santin  (talk) 21:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are over 600,000 reserved characters between U+30000 and U+DFFFF. Let's create all these articles and make them redirect to Unicode too, since somebody might search for them! That's such a great idea! -- Prince Kassad (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this isn't the only potential target. Unicode could add those characters and make them stars or printers marks or any number of non-arrow things.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete If we made a redirect for dingbats, then we ought to have a redirect for every Chinese character too, to Chinese language. I say delete because the resulting thousands of redirects would be nonsense.  People can't normally type dingbats anyway - they are normally chosen from a list, and are unlikely as search terms.  A redirect essentially saying "this is a dingbat" isn't particularly meaningful, but might be a suitable addition to Wiktionary (where an article for each Chinese character is actually desirable as well). Reswobslc (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These aren't dingbats; they aren't anything. They're empty holes in Unicode.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. With no prejudice to actual arrow dingbats, these aren't arrows; they aren't anything. Unicode could add a CIRCLED TIBETAN LETTER KSHA there, or WHITE AIRPLANE, or DOUBLE-LENGTH PENCIL, or anything. The article should be non-existent until if and when these characters are created.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dingbat redirects
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * ✀ → Dingbat
 * ✅ → Dingbat
 * ✊ → Dingbat
 * ✋ → Dingbat
 * ❎ → Dingbat
 * ❓ → Dingbat
 * ❔ → Dingbat
 * ❕ → Dingbat
 * ❗ → Dingbat
 * ✨ → Dingbat
 * ❟ → Dingbat
 * ❌ → Dingbat
 * ❠ → Dingbat

These characters don't exist. -- -- Prince Kassad (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * If they didn't exist, you wouldn't be able to post them here. They are Unicode characters reserved for use as Dingbat symbols.  ➳   Quin 02:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See above. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 07:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete; as per Arrow redirects. There's no point in adding reserved characters that could be anything and won't actually come up. Unicode has filled holes in the BMP with whatever they need space for, so these could become circled ideographs or something else non-dingbat. In any case, WP:CRYSTAL. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosfilaes (talk • contribs) 15:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

How Great Thou Art (to be deleted) → How Great Thou Art (Hymn)
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 12:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC) The title says it all. Unlikely to be typed in by accident. RJaguar3 | u  |  t  17:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * The mess comes from a series of pagemoves and reverts all conducted on 3 Jan 2007. If the user hadn't self-reverted so quickly, I'd probably call it vandalism.  As it is, I'll try to assume good faith and call it an innocent error.  Weak keep only because it does no harm and it costs slightly more in server activity to delete it than to ignore it.  Rossami (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete massively unlikely to be used as a search term for the hymn! SkierRMH (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Unlikely to be used as a search term" is an invalid argument for deletion.  Redirects do much more than merely support the search engine.  Rossami (talk)
 * Delete. What benefit to the encyclopaedia does this redirect provide? None. It unnecessarily adds to search results and nobody will link to it. It borders on being self-referential and contains no significant edit history that needs to be kept. As for the keep comment, we don't need to worry about server resources, and I would hope the servers can handle the routine deletion of a redirect with virtually no edit history and very few links. mattbr 19:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The Adventures of Detective Van Zwam, → The Adventures of Nero
The result of the debate was speedily deleted under WP:CSD. mattbr 20:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Error redirect, a comma got included. M URGH  disc.  15:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Since you recently created the redirect and no one else has edited it, you can have it speedy-deleted without discussion by adding the db-author tag (instead of the rfd tag). Rossami (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)