Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 May 25

May 25
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 25, 2008

Sohail inaytullah → Sohail Inayatullah
The result of the debate was delete per the reasoning provided by Black Falcon. By the nature of Wikipedia's search function, the existence of Sohail Inaytullah (which I have closed as keep) makes maintaining a lowercase version unnecessary. VegaDark (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A misspelling of the person's name that was fixed, now has a redirect due to move.(Missing an "a".) Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - misspellings are the sort of thing redirects are good for. I don't understand why one would want this deleted. — xDanielx  T/C\R 03:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - reasonable misspelling redirect. KTC (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Given the nature of Wikipedia's search engine, the existence of "Sohail Inaytullah" (see below) make this one unnecessary. The search engine case-insensitive when all words in a title are capitalised. For example, searching for "Sohail inayatullah" currently takes the reader directly to the main article, despite the fact that Sohail inayatullah does not (and need not) exist. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sohail Inaytullah → Sohail Inayatullah
The result of the debate was keep. VegaDark (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A misspelling of the person's name that was fixed, now has a redirect due to move. (Missing an "a".) Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - misspellings are the sort of thing redirects are good for. I don't understand why one would want this deleted. — xDanielx  T/C\R 03:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - reasonable misspelling redirect. KTC (talk) 10:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - plausible misspelling. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Miley Cyrus' Untitled Second Studio Album → Miley Cyrus
The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Page redirected to current target after a crystal-ball page was created. The page should really have been deleted, as this is a very unlikely search term. I say delete with no prejudice against recreating a page on the album if/when there is definite information about it and reliable sources to back this up  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 14:17, May 25, 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Redirects are an effective way to prevent these crystal-ball stubs from reappearing and point the anon contributor to the correct page where his/her contributions will be appreciated.  Rossami (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an extremely unlikely search term. There is a properly titled article Breakout (album) with the real article information.--NrDg 15:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. See Google. Only a bunch of copies of the same thing are mentioned. Keep if someone can find evidence that its actually mentioned on some Hannah Montana sites as something official. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per NrDg and Saimdusan. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Put it out of our misery - its likelihood of being used as a search item is zero because the actual name of the album in question is Breakout... all one word of it. B.Wind (talk) 07:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Filmreference → Website
The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

This make no sense. I guess that there must be a website called "Filmreference", since this user is all the time creating actor articles. Enric Naval (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete I agree. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:55, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonsense. Creator of this redirect has recently had dozens of articles, redirects, and categories of his/her/its creation deleted, and the hits just keep on coming... B.Wind (talk) 07:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Even_More_Changes → The John Larroquette Show
The result of the debate was delete. VegaDark (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable sentence that must have been uttered by actors on that show. It doesn't even appear on the target article. Enric Naval (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - Doesn't appear in the target article, not a strong enough link to warrant a redirect. Unlikely search term too.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 14:23, May 25, 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - unlikely search term, doesn't seem to have any notable relation to the target of the redirect. Terraxos (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Very weak delete - if there were an episode guide, either in the target article or in a standalone "List of episodes of The John Larroquette Show", it would be worth keeping, but there isn't one. B.Wind (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

N.O.O.S.E. → Grand Theft Auto IV
The result of the debate was withdrawn/keep. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Fictional SWAT agency on a videogame, only difference with real life SWAT is the name. The target article wikilinks this name to the real life agency using Special Weapons And Tactics. Not a likely search term, and it's only notable for fans of the game. Author of article already tried to stick an article on this name. Enric Naval (talk) 09:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep: plausible search term for fans of the game, but as the nominator notes, unlikely to ever be notable for an article in its own right. Redirecting seems like the right thing to do here. Scog (talk) 10:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the fact that the term is notable and hence a plausible search term for fans of the game, but not notable enough in its own right for an article is why it should exist as an redirect. KTC (talk) 10:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - its even mentioned in the article twice. Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nom withdrawn well, reading the comments above, I guess that leaving it as a redirect is OK --Enric Naval (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Abortion (murder) → Pro-life
The result of the debate was delete per WP:SNOW: there is a clear consensus to not have this unlikely search term as a redirect. However, note that redirects "are not covered by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy", according to Redirect. –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I'm gonna let you folks sort this one out. XD delldot   talk  01:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This was originally created as a straight redirect to Abortion. Given the history, I don't see any reason to have created this other redirect than to be deliberately provocative.  I can find no evidence that this was associated with a page move or content dispute where there might be appropriate history to preserve.  The page is orphaned and the nomenclature of the title is such that I do not see any likelihood that this link will ever be (or was ever) in use.  Delete.  Rossami (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete or Keep but do not redirect back to abortion. If you are going to have it, it should point to an article that is related to the concept of "abortion is murder," in the same way that if it existed, Abortion (family planning) should redirect to Pro choice.  Personally I think both should be deleted as both are unlikely names to type in when searching for articles.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete NPO-freakin'-V. -- Ned Scott 06:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete redirect only useful to make a non-neutral WP:POINT --Enric Naval (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no, just no. (Pointy et al.) KTC (talk) 10:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Pointy, POV redirect and an unlikely search term to boot.  RichardΩ612  Ɣ ɸ 14:20, May 25, 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Who will ever type in "Abortion (murder)"? Its not like there's some other type of abortion that pro-life activists believe in, so they'll most likely search simply "abortion". Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 21:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - pointy and unnecessary. — xDanielx  T/C\R 03:17, 26 May 20'08 (UTC)
 * Comment: just to provide a little context, this was done as a jape on #wikipedia. --Gwern (contribs) 03:40 26 May 2008 (GMT)
 * Huh? what was done as a jape, when was it done, and what is a jape? davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  04:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete/salt No way, ever, heck no.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlikely search term, definitely POV. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 11:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt thoroughly-not only does it violate WP:POINT, one can argue that it is inflammatory vandalism. (NOTE: a jape is a type of joke) B.Wind (talk) 21:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete - not funny, obviously not neutral, and to a significant number of people, pretty offensive. Redirects like this should not be created, even as a joke. Terraxos (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)