Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 July 9

July 9
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 9, 2008

User:Estarapapax/List of Fox Ninja media → Naruto
The result of the debate was Speedy close CNSRs from project space to article space is not a valid rationale for deletion. The reason this user has made this redirect is to bypass a content filter. If you don't want to bother asking them about the redirect first, then don't bother with RFD. Ned Scott 07:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirect from a user page to an article. Unlikely that anyone would look this up. Nan oha A's Yu ri    Talk, My master 23:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Estarapapax/Fox ninja → Naruto
The result of the debate was Speedy close CNSRs from project space to article space is not a valid rationale for deletion. The reason this user has made this redirect is to bypass a content filter. If you don't want to bother asking them about the redirect first, then don't bother with RFD. Ned Scott 07:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Cross namespace redirect from a user page to an article. Unlikely that anyone would look this up. Nan oha A's Yu ri    Talk, My master 23:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 02:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Bazamataz → Richard Dawkins
The result of the debate was Speedy Delete, R3. Lenticel ( talk ) 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

An apparently nonsensical redirect. EJF (talk) 19:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete - apparent vandalism on at least one occasion (the original redirect was equally nonsensical). Retargeting it to Richard Dawkins could be interpreted as an attack (or test). B.Wind (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy deleted already. It's probably an attack, since Richard Dawkins is frequently a target of these kinds of things. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Interblag → Internet
The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 07:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Implausible search term. Possibly Munroe-related. Sceptre (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Google returns only 488 unique instances of this. Seems more like a protologism than even a neologism.  Delete.  Rossami (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pǎcurar → Pecoraro
The result of the debate was Delete Lenticel  ( talk ) 00:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Created as a new page as a redirect by the same person who created the Minea mess I fixed below, the target is ostensibly about a surname derived from Latin as it exists in multiple languages, but not only can I not see someone searching for a Romanian surname on the English Wikipedia and getting the accent mark right, I don't see the validity of redirecting it to an article where that name as such is not even mentioned - the one appearance is one guy named Pǎcuraru in a list of "famous people". MSJapan (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Thanks for the help MSJapan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaston200 (talk • contribs) 05:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Mine-a → Minea
The result of the debate was Speedy close. (Non-admin closure) Mastrchf (t/c) 18:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC) Reason the redirect should be deleted

'''The page and surname Minea should be distinguished from Mine-a, a TV program. The current redirect would confuse seekers of both distinctions, i.e. that of Minea and that of Mine-a. Thanks.''' 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment: Whoever actually proposed this has no idea what they're doing, but the fact of the matter is that Mine-a does not redirect to Minea (it is about the Filipino show), and the redirect page Minea has content on it (the same stuff I removed off here as aricle material), so I'm just going to be bold and remove the tag, because all that needs to be done is to remove the redirect line, not the whole page, and throw a hat template on the top of it or something to dab. MSJapan (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Close as there is no redirect page at either location now. B.Wind (talk) 01:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lodoss to Senki → Record of Lodoss War
The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ( talk ) 00:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Confusing redir, as the redir title is neither wholly in English nor wholly in Japanese, and the partial romanization of the Japanese is wrong (should be Roudosu tousenki or some division thereof), so someone who knew the Japanese title couldn't find the Lodoss War article with this redirect, and someone who doesn't know Japanese wouldn't use (or need) this redirect. MSJapan (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep because the redirect documents the pagemove. This move was executed in 2004 - before the MediaWiki software was updated to automatically record pagemoves in the pagehistory.  This redirect and the history behind it are the only records of the original contributors of the page.  GFDL requires us to keep attribution history.  (While there are alternatives to merge history, they are not worth the effort in this case and, even if executed, would not correct any existing links either external or in history to the original title.)  Redirects are not endorsements of the title.  In this case, it is merely an administrative recordkeeping device.  Rossami (talk) 04:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I found it quite by accident, actually, and if it's wrong (which it is) nobody is going to be looking for the article there, meanign that the article history might as well be lost, so I've requested on VP that the histories be merged and the redirect deleted. Otherwise I think we have a license violation. MSJapan (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep has many ghits, and is used by IMDB, and bad romanization is found for Japanese named things all the time, and "Lodoss" is the official romanization, IIRC, so using that is also what would be used in a proper Japanese romanization, and not the phonetic romaji version. 70.51.8.100 (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: First, the Japanese don't romanize their own material, and my point is that it is not a proper romanization - just because it's bad doesn't mean it should continue to be used. However, as that page is apparently a cut-and-paste move, I'm going to simply request that the histories be merged. MSJapan (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Japanese do romanize their own material all the time, just look at Japanese advertisements with Latin lettering replacing Japanese characters. 70.55.86.51 (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)