Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 1

August 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 1, 2009

Santana Ike
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Unlikely search term. Juelz Santana has never gone by "Santana Ike" and Google brings up nothing affiliated with him. —  Σ  xplicit 23:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Juelz Santana (links to redirect)
 * Delete. Unlikely combination of words, unneeded redirect. Binksternet (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:5
The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Template:I5 (links to redirect)
 * delete
 * Unused (except a handful of user & talk pages) redirect to a pretty useless template. J IM ptalk·cont 16:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - lack of incoming links is not a valid reason to delete a redirect (and there are several that link to this template redirect). On the other hand, I think a pretty good case could be made for a deletion discussion for the target "template" (should the target wind up deleted, this will quickly follow by the speedy deletion process). Until/unless the target goes, there is no reason for deletion of this redirect. B.Wind (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:SP
The result of the discussion was Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Template:S (links to redirect)
 * delete
 * This redirect is used on three talk pages only. J IM ptalk·cont 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - lack of incoming links is not a valid reason to delete a redirect (and there are several that link to this template redirect). In fact,  appears to be a worthy alternate to  as "sp" is sometimes used in editing to indicate a recommended insertion of a space. B.Wind (talk) 00:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep — It's a helpful mnemonic for &amp;nbsp;. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Nigga moment
The result of the discussion was redirect to Granddad's Fight. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-notable phrase, no reliable source definition. Target redirect page has no occurrence of phrase. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → List of The Boondocks characters (links to redirect)
 * Redirect to Granddad's Fight, the episode of The Boondocks (TV series) where the phrase is prominently discussed.  young  american  (wtf?) 04:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Nigga Moment
The result of the discussion was redirect to Granddad's Fight. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC) Non-notable phrase, no reliable source definition. Target redirect page has no occurrence of phrase. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → List of The Boondocks characters (links to redirect)
 * Redirect to Granddad's Fight, the episode of The Boondocks (TV series) where the phrase is prominently discussed.  young  american  (wtf?) 04:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Binksternet (talk) 15:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

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

Domaining
The result of the discussion was no longer applicable as has been converted to an article. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:40, 6 August 2009 (UTC) As people have pointed out on Talk:Domaining, "domaining" describes a very different practice than "cybersquatting." I like the suggestion to point this to Domain name speculation. Please note that this issue has attracted the attention of a number of domainers who may be unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. The original redirect decision was made at Articles_for_deletion/Domaining. FCSundae ∨  ☃   (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Cybersquatting (links to redirect)
 * Comment: I'll respectfully defer to community consensus. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless and until there is a reasonable, unbiased and sourced article that people can agree on (currently being worked on at domaining/sandbox) that is sufficiently distinct from domain name speculation, redirecting to domain name speculation is definitely better than the current target cybersquatting. There are people who buy and sell domains like people buy and sell physical properties, and there are people who cybersquat, however the two are not the same in general even if there might be a minority overlap in some cases. Let's not offend a whole community / industry. :) As a note, that particular AfD really should have been extended. 3 !votes where 1 argued for delete and 2 for redirect without reason really doesn't constitute consensus. -- KTC (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As the protecting admin, I have no opinion on this other than the fact that there is an existing AfD where the consensus was to redirect to cybersquatting. Beyond that, whatever the community decides is fine with me. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Redirecting Domaining to Cybersquatting is quite wrong as the first is a legitimate business practice and the latter is an offence in some jurisdictions. The problem article seemed to be an attempt to replace an article that had apparently been scrubbed or deleted. Redirecting Domaining and Domainer to the Domain name speculation page may be the best solution. It will also require some enhancements of the Domain name speculation page. Jmccormac (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I believe the current draft of a new article, currently at domaining/sandbox, should be sufficient to allow the title to exist as a self-standing article. I do believe the draft represents a baseline of factual representation with secondary sources from major publications to establish notability. Kbrose (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I also would suggest that a discussion regarding any decision or option to redirect to domain name speculation should be deferred until after the article is installed for the benefit of allowing a larger audience to way in. A merger of the two may be justified or not, but I think this is not the time or place to discuss that. Kbrose (talk) 01:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure if the sandbox article is good enough atm, and wether or not is should be seperate from domain name speculation, but I'd rather have domainer and domaining redirect to domain name speculation than to cybersquatting if not for the sole reason that although 'the same', cybersquatting has a rather clear legal definition now that marks it as a criminal act. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 00:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Conclusion: This discussion can be closed, as the draft article has been moved to domaining and is now editable for all editors. All further content discussions can take place at talk:domaining. Kbrose (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)