Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 22

April 22
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 22, 2008

Greek fun site → Game
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Extremely unlikely search term. Redirected spam page that really should have been baleeted. Richard Ω6  12  20:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, apparent advertising. Terraxos (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, spam. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

BestPart → Pornography
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * - No links
 * - No links
 * - No links in articles [xxx is a likely search, but this is overkill]

Extremely unlikely search terms, no link between these and the target. 'BestPart' was created in 2004 [!] and still no links, showing how useless it is. Richard Ω6  12  20:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete all I found the xxx one on a rendom search. Can't see any useful purpose being served by these. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete all, useless redirects, probably advertising. Terraxos (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, not search terms. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all - "N00dz" appears to be leetspeak, but there's nothing in the target article to indicate this. The other two seem to be unlikely search targets for pornography ("Asian stash" sounds more likely to be a nickname for opium, but I cannot say with any certainty). B.Wind (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete BestPart is a point of view, N00dz is leet speak, Asian stash looks racist and the remaining one is simply unlikely. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Wal★Mart → Wal-Mart
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC) No links in articles, unlikely search term given the special character. Auto-created redirect when Wal-Mart was moved from this name. Richard Ω6  12  20:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap, but this is an almost impossible search term. Weak delete. -- Flyguy649 talk 20:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Thought I would mention that Wal*Mart exists as well (without the special character). Personally I think this is more a brand issue than whether some keyboard can type the special character.  Tuxide (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wal*Mart is acceptable and easily typable [word?]. What do you mean by brand issue? >< Richard  Ω6  12  20:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I support deletion. I do not believe anybody will search with the ★ character, ever. An asterisk, however, might be, so I am fine with it. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nobody will be able to type that ★. Wal*Mart is fine though, as is Macy*s. Stifle (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Remotely conceivable that someone might cut-and-paste a Wal★Mart reference from somewhere else.  Extremely slight reason to keep but even less reason to delete. JamesMLane t c 21:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, as it is the technically correct name of the company, and it's just about conceivable that someone could enter it as a search term. Terraxos (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, reasonable and helpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How can you produce the graphic star in the name of the redirect page? Inquiring minds want to know! B.Wind (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as plausible search term by copy and paste. –Pomte 03:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirects created by page moves like this are supposed to be kept, and it is conceivable that someone might use it. No real reason to delete it. -- Ned Scott 04:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * KeepThe Illusional Ministry (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete There is no ★ on a keyboard so it is really unnecessary redirect. Gman124 talk 06:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of characters without a dedicated button on my keyboard, but that's never been a rationale to delete a redirect (or some of the articles that do use special characters in their title). -- Ned Scott 05:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. While not really a plausible search string, Wal★Mart is a plausible link target. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep How can you be so sure that nobody makes his/her own shortcut for the star and uses it? That's it you can't, some computers have the possibility to choose a shortcut for special characters. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, because the Wal Mart article was there in May 2007. Who knows what outside sites or documents might link to this version of the name? Redirect is cheap. -Pete (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fox Ninja → Naruto
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Also consider:
 * List of Fox Ninja episodes‎ → List of Naruto episodes
 * List of Fox Ninja chapters‎ → List of Naruto manga volumes
 * List of Fox Ninja chapters (Part II)‎ → List of Naruto chapters (Part II)
 * List of Burichi characters → List of Bleach characters
 * List of Burichi chapters‎‎ → List of Bleach chapters
 * List of Burichi episodes → List of Bleach episodes
 * List of Soul Reapers in Burichi‎ → List of Soul Reapers in Bleach

Looks to be somebody creating redirects based on their nicknames for Naruto and Bleach (manga). Wouldn't say these are likely search terms. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 19:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the Bleach ones, since Burichi seems to be based on the phonetic pronunciation of Bleach in Japanese (I think). I have no opinion on the Naruto ones. -- Ned Scott 04:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How many people are going to search for Bleach based on it's romanized name, though? They're not necessary redirects. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 01:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even if it was 1 in a thousand, that's still enough to justify a redirect. Redirects are cheap, and not a bad thing to have around when you're also dealing with a work that was originally published in another language. -- Ned Scott 05:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete All unlikely search terms. Gman124 talk 04:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm the one behind all those redirects. Well, I'll just leave it for you to decide. My original purpose for those redirects is that our LAN provider prohibits URLs having string "naruto" and string "bleach" (plus string "episode" OR "chapter", etc. for "bleach". Bleach is a common term, that's why.) Our university LAN tries to prevent access to bandwidth hog domains. We've already petitioned that they give exception for wikipedia domain, but they didn't heed it. So, I thought of making those redirects. Yeah, I agree that they are unlikely search terms but quite many of my friends here are already using those redirects occasionally. I know that’s not a valid reason so just go on with this discussion and make your decision. If the decision is DELETE, we’ll just resort to web proxies.  eStaRapapax  xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa! 13:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then we can create some project-space redirects for you that would do the same thing. -- Ned Scott 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be good. I don't know project-space redirects, maybe you can tell me something about them (just post at my talk page).  eStaRapapax  xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa! 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete All: Read my posts above. Somebody offered an alternative. (I thought of adding DB-author tag in those redirects but I'll just let this discussion have its own conclusion.)  eStaRapapax  xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa! 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Naruto chapters → List of Naruto manga volumes
The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Pages called "List of Naruto chapters (Part I)" and "List of Naruto chapters (Part II)" are better suited for this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HomicidalOfTheFrench (talk • contribs) 19:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - even though it's a misnomer, it is a very plausible search term. B.Wind (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep no valid deletion rationale. The nominator seems to be confused about RfD. If you want to propose a page move of the targets then start a discussion on Talk:List of Naruto manga volumes. -- Ned Scott 04:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is an attempt to change the target article name since List of Naruto chapters (Part I) and List of Naruto chapters (Part II) exists. I think the monimator may actually want a retargteing opposed to the remamning of the current taget. --76.71.209.214 (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * KeepThe Illusional Ministry (talk) 00:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sam germaine-scrivens → Twat
The result of the debate was speedy delete as attack page. ... disco spinster   talk  19:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC) Possible attack redirect, definite nonsense. No links [why would there be?] Richard  Ω6  12  18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * I've just nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:CSD. Terraxos (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Weapons of mouse destruction → Cat
The result of the debate was Deleted. Google shows this phrase not widely used and, when used, it's not specific to cats. Disambig seems unnecessary given it's not going to be a common search term. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Quirky redirect [I chuckled!] but useless and a very unlikely search term. No links. Richard Ω6  12  17:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as either vandalism or per WP:IAR. Comment: is one person making all these joke redirects? -- Thin  boy  00  @793, i.e. 18:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. I use this tool to sift through pages looking for nonsense to clear. >< Richard  Ω6  12  18:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per Thinboy00. Hah, cute but irrelevant. :P Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  15:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why someone asked me to check in on this, but it reminds me of weapons of math instruction and the dreaded al Gebra terrorist caught boarded a flight at Newark Airport. He was caught with a protractor, compass, and a book filled with diagrams and equations. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In deference to the creator of the redirect above (Uncle Ed/Ed Poor), I doubt that this joke redirect falls under WP:CSD (and, yes, it is a funny joke), but as a most highly unlikely search item, it should be deleted. B.Wind (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep it's been there since 2004, who knows how many off-site links might be using that. I see no harm in this. -- Ned Scott 04:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do you really think off-site links would use 'Weapons of mouse destruction' to refer to cats? Seems very unlikely.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ |ɸ 10:18, April 24, 2008 (UTC)
 * When they're humorous it's more likely than you think. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Close this puppy - speedied by East718.B.Wind (talk) 03:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Page has since been recreated so closer is premature. --76.71.209.214 (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguity Page because it should also redirect to Mousetrap, Pest control and others. ~ Agvulpine (talk) 11:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

JEWS! → Jew
The result of the debate was Delete as implausible redirect.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 00:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC) Odd redirect, very unlikely search term. No links. DELETE! Richard Ω6  12  17:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete with no prejudice against creating a sourced article on another topic in its place, should such a topic arise. -- Thin  boy  00  @797, i.e. 18:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete so unhelpful. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnesecary, if we have a redirect like this then soon we'll have ones like WIKIPEDIAS! and HUMANS! ~ A H  1 (TCU) 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * DeleteThe Illusional Ministry (talk) 00:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a friendly reminder: this is a discussion, not a vote. A simple "delete" or a simple "keep" will most likely be discounted by the closing admin.B.Wind (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete a bad precedent. Exclamation points and all caps may work for Yahoo!, but we don't need every article to have an uppercase (w & w/o "!"), plural uppercase (w & w/o "!") redirects. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Jim Davidson Show → Racism
The result of the debate was Revert the bot changing the redirect. Withdrawing nom, forgot to check this one. >< Richard  Ω6  12  18:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC) This attack redirect sticks out like a cat on Pluto. Total nonsense, time for it to go. Richard Ω6  12  17:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Revert the bot (see history of redirect). -- Thin  boy  00  @789, i.e. 17:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Black Salem → HIM (Finnish band)
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I have never heard of the term "Black Salem" associated with the band before. Looking at the previous revisions before it was a redirect, it said it was a side project of HIM. Personally, as a fan and through research, I never heard of this side project and could likely be a hoax. It is unlikely that this term would be searchable if there is no mention of it in the main article. —  Κ aiba  10:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - a Google search of "Black Salem" shows nothing with this context, except for, an announcement page/poster. I have found nothing connecting this to HIM. Most links with "Black Salem" refer to Salem, Oregon, but even there, it's pretty much scattered amongst many topics. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

2mb → Lee Myung bak
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Unlikely search term and it's utter non-sense. It's probably vandalism. Merumerume (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - useless tripe, impossible link and search term. >< Richard  Ω6  12  17:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete it would be nice if we could speedy this as nonsense (but then it probably doesn't fall into narrow criteria at WP:CSD). -- Thin  boy  00  @800, i.e. 18:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment without recommendation. Lee Myung bak had the MB Doctrine, but I cannot tell of "2mb" or "2MB" refers to a part of the doctrine because I cannot read Korean, the language in which the citations for the MB Doctrine article were written. Someone who can read Korean or is well-versed in recent Korean history would be helpful here in determining if this is a valid redirect (if it is, it should point to MB Doctrine, which is currently an ultrashort - two sentence -stub in need of assistance). B.Wind (talk) 02:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment. I just checked with some Korean sources, and it is the term that Koreans use to insult Lee Myung Bak referring that he only has brain capacity of 2MB (like Americans using "Miserable Failure" for George W. Bush). But it is still non-sense nonetheless. Merumerume (talk) 07:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Daniel Brandt → Public Information Research
The result of the debate was Please list this at Deletion review. DRV is the last, final arbiter of deletions, and this looks like an attempt to do an end-run on a little-watched forum. As the most recent DRV endorsed deleting the redirect, DRV is the place to take it for reconsideration. Thatcher 16:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, this is a fairly complicated nomination. Essentially, this is a procedural nomination from a DRV. After discussion with the closing admin, he agreed that it was reasonable to relist here since some people in the DRV were calling for deletion based on a nonpublic time sensitive outing threat by Brandt. See. Since then I've debated relisting this redirect or not and thus didn't keep to my statement of the next day or so. However, it then became apparent that as I had predicted Brandt had no intention to stop his campaign on Wikipedia. He has essentially threatened to continue his harassment and disruption until any mention of him be removed (see his comment that "I'm mentioned too many times on Public_Information_Research and I have some quarrel with that, as it threatened to become a substitute for my bio once the redirect was in place" Therefore I am relisting this redirect. Per the closing admin (Prodego's request) I am not recreating the redirect in the meantime but merely listing it here. My own opinion is that the redirect should kept in that this was an essential part of the complex merge compromise of the Daniel Brandt AfD and that Brandt's sole objection to this redirect is that it makes the PIR article have a high google rank. As Iron Gargoyle put it, we are not the googlepolice. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be clear, no consensus at this discussion means we keep the redirect since no consensus defaults to keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect I'm sorry if I bring it down to brass roots but if Daniel Brandt is the founder of Public Information Research, I don't see a problem with redirecting to there as an informational thought process. I'm thinking that there probably is not enough for a full article on this person but because of the afiliation to this organization, this is a logical way to go... hmmmmm? --Pmedema (talk) 03:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there was more than enough information to go on, after n AfDs (I think n=12 or so) a compromise was made where the material was merged to various articles with most of it merged to Public Information Research. Brandt then demanded deletion of that redirect, an initial out of process deletion of that was overturned, a second one was almost endorsed but the closing admin changed his mind somewhat and so now we're here. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect Eh, my opinions have changed as I've investigated the issue more. And I think a redirect would be proper given Brandt's public involvement with PIR.  MBisanz  talk 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect, for the same reasons I argued in the Deletion Review: Brandt is mentioned in the article, so it's at least a marginally useful redirect, and as it isn't harming anyone, I can't see any reasonable grounds for deleting it. Terraxos (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect; if there's not going to be a page about him, there should be a redirect to the page that received the most from the merge, for search purposes. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect. He's mentioned in the article, and he is a marginally public figure (e.g., users may search on his name). We regularly redirect like this when there's no biographical article available, or when there won't be such an article - there's no reason not to do so here. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Restore redirect as valid. -- Naerii  15:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do not restore, respect AfD DRV. I note also that my concerns - that there are no reliable sources backing up the information we provide by redirecting Daniel Brandt to Public Information Research rather than to any of the other things he is (not very well-) known for - are still unaddressed.  -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how this is respecting some AfD because I frankly have no idea what you are talking about. And can we please not have the ridiculous argument again that redirects somehow need to have there own reliable sources? No one but you thought this argument had any validity at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Respect the consensus expressed very recently. This is disruptive. And if you are going to go through this rigmarole again, I will bring the argument out again. No one but you thought that no one but I thought that this argument had any validity. (Heh. And so on ad infinitum, so think of another one.) Bring us sources to justify the information content of this redirect, or stop wasting everybody's time. -- Relata refero (disp.) 15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a very underhanded way to get around the new consensus that formed at the last DRV to eliminate this by posting it to a remote and out of the way corner of Wikipedia. For shame. Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  15:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for assuming so much good faith Lawrence. The closing admin agreed that there wasn't a consensus at that DRV (hence this discussion now). And this is hardly an out of the way place. Now do you have an argument as to why we shouldn't have this redirect? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Having reviewed your history with this Daniel Brandt character, I'm dismayed that you seem to focus so heavily on him in what appears to be retaliation for your being listed at his Hivemind page. My reasoning for removal is human decency. If someone is this damned angry to be out, we take him out. As I mentioned on the DRV, a significant amount of the endless drama involving Brandt is your doing: you are responsible for many people being on Hivemind. Suck it up and delete this so we can actually work on something else for a change. Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lawrence, You misunderstand at multiple levels. 1) I frankly don't care much about hivemind. I do care about the success of this project to build an NPOV encyclopedia. That goal doesn't include deliberately damaging the encyclopedia to give a mouse a cookie. Frankly, his level of anger isn't terribly relevant; there are for more people who are as angry or more angry that we have pictures of Mohammed. We've had serious death threats over those and the project hasn't given in. The only difference is that we come from a value system that isn't heavily iconoclastic so many Wikipedians don't emphasize with the Muslims as much. As to the accusation that I'm responsible for anyone being on Hivemind, that's ridiculous and you know it. Brandt puts people up on Hivemind all the time. It has included users who've actually tried to help him. The notion that somehow I'm responsible is blaming a victim (if again, I cared that much about being on Hivemind). Now instead of ad hominem attacks let's actually address the matter in question. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note The previous DRV was closed Endorse Delete, not the no-consensus that Josh misrepresented it as. Lawrence Cohen  §  t / e  15:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest taking a few deep breathes, Lawrence? You seem oddly agitated about his, and I'm afraid it's clouding your judgment. - auburn pilot   talk  15:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Lawrence, Prodego the closing admin agreed that it could be reasonably interpreted as a no consensus. See the dicussion on his talk page. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * He's right, though. Nowhere does JoshuaZ in his nom say "the deletion was endorsed a couple of weeks ago". Bad show. -- Relata refero (disp.) 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Really, I explained things fairly well. The closing admin said this was a reasonable step. That's the relevant detail. He agreed that he didn't have relevant information when he made that decision. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep deleted - this is really just pointless drama that we do not need and the nomination reads a lot like "I don't like Brandt, so we're going to do the opposite of what he says." I also don't plan on watchlisting this, so don't waste your time replying to me here, it just makes you look even more obsessive. Mr.  Z- man  16:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Recreate redirect, or, preferably, the article. I'm not going to provide an argument, as it'll just be ignored anyway. J Milburn (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect As the founder of Public Information Research, it is only natural that Daniel Brandt would redirect there. This has nothing to do with "human decency" but ease of navigation. - auburn pilot   talk  16:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it "only natural" in the face of an objection that it unfairly characterises his career? -- Relata refero (disp.) 16:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Becuase that claim isn't accurate and the community already decided as such in the initial complex merge? JoshuaZ (talk) 16:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that's what redirects are for. Frankly, I could not care less what Brandt thinks of the redirect, if that is who thinks it "unfairly characterises his career". If it's you who thinks that, then your argument is baseless. If Jason K. Cougar founds a company, but doesn't warrant an article on himself, but the company does, we redirect Jason K. Cougar to that company. This isn't complicated. - auburn pilot   talk  16:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Leave Daniel Brandt deleted  <>as a BLP concern and as a courtesy to the subject. His mention in the article is more than sufficient for encyclopedic purposes.  Dloh  cierekim  16:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The deletion of the redirect was not a BLP issue. -- Ned Scott 21:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete altogether, while Brandt is notable within Wikipedia circles his biography is not an encyclopedic topic. Moreover, there are indeed BLP worries here and truth be told, reliable sources on him are a bit thin. This can be revisited if say, some publication like Wired or the Gaurdian ever does an in depth profile on him. Meanwhile my take is, let's wait until then. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You realize this is about a redirect, not recreation of the article, right? - auburn pilot   talk  16:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted - End the drama already. Most likely a bad faith nom anyways. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the only thing the subject is notable for? Then we need not recreate the article. Recreating the redirect gives his role undue weight. He is more than adequately covered in the Public Information Research article. There is no significant value in recreating the redirect and a potential of harm in continuing to antagonize the subject needlessly.  Dloh  cierekim  16:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect per my past comments on the matter, which I would be willing to summarize if anyone wants (I probably will anyways once I get my thoughts collected). -- Ned Scott 21:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'