Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 23

December 23
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 23, 2008

LLLLL → Leisure Suit Larry in the Land of the Lounge Lizards
The result of the discussion was No consensus (defaults to keep). -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Redirect based on an improbable typo WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Moot point -- someone speedied it. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. LLLLL is the name of the executable that runs the game, it also uses this string in save game file names. Game therefore sometimes referred to using this name. DoenerKebabMitKohl (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit late now since is was already deleteaed before you commented. If you want to conetest the deleteion you need to go to WP:DRV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.164.218 (talk) 04:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was the deleting admin but have restored the redirect pending the outcome. I saw the speedy tag but failed to see the RFD tag. Anyway, please continue the discussion. JodyBtalk 13:09, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nobody, but nobody is really going to expect to find the article at LLLLL 13:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * keep because redirets are cheap. We should delete redirects that are in some way "wrong", but we shouldn't delete those that a remerely unlikely to be looked for. --dab (𒁳) 10:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Multilingualism language → Requests for new languages/Wiktionary multilingual
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (From AfD) This page is a softredirect to Requests for new languages/Wiktionary multilingual. It was nominated for WP:PROD, but as the page's creator I wanted to bring it here. See Talk:Multilingualism language for why it exists. This, that and the other [ talk ] 06:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Utterly implausible title. Any incoming links such as here should be changed. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:38, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I probably should go over to meta (and incubator) and chat: I think they have templates which automatically link to the WP page &lt;language name&gt; language, which is ridiculous in cases like this. This, that and the other [ talk ] 09:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's incubator:Template:Tests/row that is the erroneous template, for what it's worth. The template causes interwiki links to both Multilingualism language and Unknown language here on the English Wikipedia.  Both are clearly wrong, and the template should be adjusted so that it doesn't create interwiki links for either of those situations, in some fashion.  I experimented with fixing it, but didn't have the time to come up with a complete solution.  Uncle G (talk) 00:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears to just be an attempt to fix a bug on Meta. That's commendable, but not necessary - it should be fixed on Meta instead. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete we are not responsible for accomodating broken code on other wikis. That would set a very nasty precedent. Happy‑melon 12:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete right away. I fixed the problem on incubator:Template:Tests/wt and incubator:Template:Tests/wb, so this is now no longer linked to. This, that and the other [ talk ] 09:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Atheophobic → Discrimination against atheists
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC) I removed db-r3 from this redirect because it had already been declined by RHaworth. retagged this page saying: ""this page was created to try to create a neologism, with no real word reliable source that the neologism is actually in use... the only cites ever given for it were a personal blog and an entry on a site freely edited by the public that listed the owner of the former personal site as the author. It also seems like the editor who created this redirect and put the sources is that person-- Wikipedia should not be gamed into being used as evidence for the existence of a word made up by someone off the street with no known expertise or noteworthiness -- call this patent nonsense, self-promotional, or what have you, but until the person comes up with reliable sources for the word's independent existence this redirect should not be here"" Cunard (talk) 04:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. OK it is a neologism. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had originally nominated this for speedy delete, but, as the author rightly pointed out to me, neologisms deserve a fair hearing. The word seems to be gaining some traction in the blogosphere, but I still feel it's an attempt to create legitimacy for a term that doesn't really have wide usage.  I believe there is a higly non-neutral drive to this quest as well.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per description above and my comment on Atheophobia below. DreamGuy (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlike 'atheophobia', it's fair game to say this word doesn't have any real currency. Dorkins (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - nothing new to add really - if it's ever used in real life, it clearly isn't very common, and WP isn't in the business of creating neologisms. dougweller (talk) 19:23, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism. This goes for the others in this cat., which I will comment on below. – Alex43223T 10:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Atheophobia → Discrimination against atheists
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC) I removed db-r3 from this redirect because it had already been declined by RHaworth. retagged this page saying: ""this page was created to try to create a neologism, with no real word reliable source that the neologism is actually in use... the only cites ever given for it were a personal blog and an entry on a site freely edited by the public that listed the owner of the former personal site as the author. It also seems like the editor who created this redirect and put the sources is that person-- Wikipedia should not be gamed into being used as evidence for the existence of a word made up by someone off the street with no known expertise or noteworthiness -- call this patent nonsense, self-promotional, or what have you, but until the person comes up with reliable sources for the word's independent existence this redirect should not be here"" Cunard (talk) 04:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. OK it is a neologism. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 05:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had originally nominated this for speedy delete, but, as the author rightly pointed out to me, neologisms deserve a fair hearing. The word seems to be gaining some traction in the blogosphere, but I still feel it's an attempt to create legitimacy for a term that doesn't really have wide usage.  I believe there is a higly non-neutral drive to this quest as well.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete this one and the offshoots atheophobe and atheophobic if they haven't already been deleted... all are clear neologisms with no reliable sources to show existence beyond a single person promoting it and no indication that it's used by any significant group of people, which is the more important part than just finding a couple of people using it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. For starters, the h2g2 source has been peer reviewed and is thus a 'Recommended' article, soon to be an 'Edited' article. This makes it unlike the ones that anyone can write just by signing up. Apart from that article, there's Positive Atheism's articles about atheophobia, an Allwords definition, and mentions on personal websites (such as here), in forums (such as here) and in blogs (such as here). There is also a Wikitionary definition, which until recently was not contested, and then by an IP address who contested it just a few hours ago... I agree that the other redirects aren't particulary useful, but 'atheophobia' is a term that has been around for a reasonable amount of time and describes in one word what 'discrimination against atheists' tries to do in three. The instances of the word I mention here are not my work and are all by different people, so please don't claim it's "made up by someone off the street". As for the matter of non-neutrality: the redirect leads to an article that isn't marked with NPOV and, although it is a source of controversy, shouldn't be knocked down before construction is complete. Dorkins (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - None of those sources meet WP:RS by a long shot -- alleged peer review on h2g2 still doesn't equal reliability or notability (the author still some unknown nobody with no known expertise or credentials o this topic or any other for that matter, ditto for so-called peers doing the "review" there), and for User:Dorkins to try to use AllWords as a source that the outside world uses the term when it's just a mirror of a Wiktionary article *he/she wrote* is nothing but sheer chutzpah. This is all a big circle, and most of these sources can be tracked right back to a single individual, who, for all we know, is the guy whose edit history here suggests that his whole reason for even being on this site is to try to create references to this neologism to legitimize it. DreamGuy (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I didn't write any of those sources, and another user is listed as having added the wiktionary entry. Furthermore, I honestly had no idea that AllWords was a mirror (talk about circularity - is everything on the web just a copy of a wikiproject page?) Please don't get all conspiratorial with me - I've only been reinstating these things because you keep removing them...


 * Oh and did I mention I found a source from twenty years ago from a scholarly journal? Rafford R.L. (1987). Atheophobia: An Introduction. Religious Humanism, 21:32-37. Dorkins (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as it appears to be a neologism and offshoot of the above. The sources I've checked just don't appear to me to be RS. I will be looking for some that are. – Alex43223T 11:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism. Once the term gains traction in reliable sources (if it does), an article could be written here instead. B.Wind (talk) 17:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Imaam Ali Naqi ibn Muhammad Taqi → Ali al-Hadi
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Unlikely redirect; seemingly unique usage of imaam with two As and nothing links to this page.  Ogress  smash!  00:34, 23 December 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'