Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 16

August 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 16, 2009

Opera redirects
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Implausible search term. I see no reason why this redirect was created, except to fill out the then-recently created Category:Opera redirects, now at CfD. Jafeluv (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Opera (links to redirect)
 * Update: the category has now been deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 11:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - inappropriate self-reference that manages to be vague and confusing at the same time (music vs. browser, for starters). B.Wind (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The self-reference renders it not only implausible/useless, but also downright unacceptable. ~ Amory ( user •  talk  •  contribs ) 03:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

David Howe (claimant to King of Mann)
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 17:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Redirect should be deleted, as the content was removed from the target page. snigbrook (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → King of Mann (links to redirect)
 * Delete. Not mentioned in the target and the parenthesis make it an unlikely search term.  young  american  (wtf?) 22:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Zenwalk
The result of the discussion was no action. If you wish to move the article to Zenwalk, please request at Requested moves. ~ mazca  talk 20:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Zenwalk Linux (links to redirect)
 * delete, Zenwalk Linux should redirect to Zenwalk, not vice versa, since "Zenwalk" is the official name of the operating system. CoolingGibbon (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per CoolingGibbon Little Professor (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as the term is mentioned exactly as presented in the first line of the target article. Nom's objection would be better served if the redirect were reversed and the current article renamed. This would not involve RfD but WP:Requested moves instead. B.Wind (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. What you want to do does not require deleting the redirect. You can list Zenwalk Linux at Requested moves as indicated on that page. I'd move this request there myself but since someone else has already argued for delete I don't think it would be ok to close this as speedy keep. But in any case I suggest you withdraw the nomination. If you have problems listing the article at Requested moves, ask me on my talk page and I'll help you out. Jafeluv (talk) 17:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Argentina–San Marino relations
The result of the discussion was keep. Killiondude (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC) delete another inappropriate redirect. LibStar (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → List of diplomatic missions of Argentina (links to redirect)
 * Keep - potentially useful redirect and no valid deletion reason has been adduced. TerriersFan (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The only issue with these redirects that LibStar had was that they were directed to the wrong page, instead of consulting the person who redirected the page (me) or changing the link himself, libstar put the link up for deletion. The link is now fixed, so the deletion discussion is moot. Nominator also did not contact me about this RFD. Ikip (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Think outside the bun
The result of the discussion was keep. Killiondude (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Delete - Hardly a plausible search term/redirect, and is clear advertising of the Taco Bell slogan. FYI the user who created this redirect was disruptive and was known for making redirects that are violations of WP:REDIR.  GraYoshi2x► talk 02:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Taco Bell (links to redirect)


 * Keep. As you say, this is a Taco Bell advertising slogan, so redirecting it to Taco Bell is reasonable. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-known advertising slogans can be considered plausible search terms. "I'm loving it" redirects to McDonald's advertising, for example. "The user who created this was disruptive" is an ad hominem argument. Jafeluv (talk) 20:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI. There's a reason I included that three letter acronym in there.  GraYoshi2x► talk 15:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, ok, I understand you weren't saying that "this should be deleted because the creator is disruptive". Still, I think who created the redirect should be irrelevant (unless it was a banned user). Jafeluv (talk) 12:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak keep. While I agree with the above arguments, the slogan isn't actually mentioned at Taco Bell. "I'm loving it", on the other hand, features prominently at McDonald's advertising. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Being a slogan for a major advert campaign makes this a plausible search term.  young  american  (wtf?) 22:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - recognizable slogan. –xenotalk 22:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and incorporate the phrase in target article ("Run for the border" should also be included, as should all significant advertising slogans like "Yo quiero Taco Bell"). B.Wind (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 Awards
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 08:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Ambiguous redirect Little Professor (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → 2009 Urban Music Awards (links to redirect)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Ambiguous to the point of uselessness. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Considering the potentially millions of awards presented in any one calendar year by various local, regional, national, and international groups, this redirect seems too ambiguous to even serve as a useful disambiguation page. --Allen3 talk 22:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, potentially highly misleading redirect. More harmful than beneficial. --Taelus (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as ambiguous and misleading. With all due respect to the Urban Music Awards, it is far from the most notable ceremony titled the "2009 Foo Awards."  young  american  (wtf?) 22:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete; stale redirect from move of page created with inappropriate title. Hqb (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as vague. It is not even appropriate to use this as a possible redirect to Category:2009 awards (or similarly named category) at it would be a cross namespace redirect.B.Wind (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Ambiguous and misleading. --skew-t (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2009 (UTC)