Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 March 26

March 26
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2008

Serie C 1945-46 → Serie B Alta Italia 1945-46
The result of the debate was Deleted. No alternative provided. If there is one, feel free to recreate with that target. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC) See Italian wiki ( http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serie_C_1945-1946 ). This redirect is incorrect. CapPixel (talk) 21:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Change redirect per nom. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Throw Open Our Office Doors To People Who Want To Discuss Things That We Could Care Less About Day → Big Block of Cheese Day
The result of the debate was delete. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

target has itself been redirected to an individual West Wing episode article and no one is ever going to type "Throw Open Our Office Doors To People Who Want To Discuss Things That We Could Care Less About Day" into the search box. Otto4711 (talk) 12:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep and fix the double-redirect. Google says this was from the dialogue of the episode; it seems memorable enough that people might search for it when looking for the episode. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the following reasons: 1) the title of the redirect doesn't appear in any form in the target article; 2) a 19-word phrase that appears nowhere else is most certainly an unlikely search term; 3) expecting to hang onto to this fails the reasonability rule (is it reasonable to expect someone to punch in all 19 words - which, by the way, is improperly capitalized for anybody guessing if there is an article or redirect with that name - how many of the words would not be capitalized in a proper article title... and which words?). B.Wind (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - I agree with B.Wind, this is a highly implausible search term, and so not a useful redirect. Terraxos (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Benjamin Chiu → Ben Chiu
The result of the debate was kept. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Erroneous full name -- it should be just Ben, not Benjamin J3tl1 (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * keep True but still a likely search if someone is mistaken about the first name. Very few people are named just Ben. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Tertiary structure protein → Tertiary structure
The result of the debate was kept. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC) "Tertiary structure protein" is "an implausible misnomer or typo". A quick search on Google shows that "tertiary structure protein" is never used as a term. Many false hits come up on Google because the "phrase" can be found by bridging across one or more punctuation marks (period, comma, semicolon, dash, equal sign, parenthesis, slash, pipe, image, ...), and sometimes words placed adjacent by accident (links, etc.) but never as an intact phrase. (Sadly, i can't find a search engine that does not span punctuation.) Well, "tertiary structure protein" does occur as an intact phrase, but only because many web sites such as The Free Dictionary pick up every redirect page from Wikipedia. Revise the Google search to look for "tertiary structure protein" -wikipedia, and most of those false hits go away.

I request deletion of this redirect page because it IS DOING HARM, by pushing a phrase into existence that otherwise does not exist, except that a Wikipedia editor introduced a mistake.

Tertiary structure is an important property of proteins, so "tertiary structure" can be used in phrases like "tertiary structure of protein" and "protein tertiary structure". The phrase "tertiary structure protein" is grammatically incorrect, or forced at best ("tertiary-structure protein"?). Maybe "tertiary protein structure" was what the editor was aiming for, as it would fit the stub article better.

The other two redirects to "Tertiary structure" are "Protein structure, tertiary" and "Tertiary structure of proteins".

WODUP declined my request for speedy deletion, citing WP:CSD. He is correct that this redirect is not literally "recently created". But: 1) It's an esoteric subject. 2) Who looks at redirects anyway? so 3) at 25 months old, it IS fairly recent. (And it IS an implausible typo.)

"Tertiary structure protein" started as an poorly-written stub article on 2005-10-05. It was made a redirect, by a different editor, six minutes later. -A876 (talk) 07:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep I know nothing of this subject BTW; it appears that it's simply incorrect wording (the correct term seems to be "tertiary structure of protein"), but it doesn't seem like this would do harm. Somebody searching for the subject might type this phrase if they're typing too quickly; on the other hand, if nobody's seeing it, the term isn't being introduced. It's a case where any article linking to it would simply need corrected. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)