Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 7

July 7
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 7, 2009

Phobias
The result of the discussion was delete all - they are not mentioned in the target article and give a misleading impression that articles do exist. ~ mazca  talk 18:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia
 * → -phobia

This is a follow-up of a previous nomination. The real phobias should be listed as redlinks in the -phobia list so that it encourages new article creation (such as "Trypophobia – fear of holes." under the Psychological conditions section), while the fake phobias should simply be deleted (as there is no use in redirecting to an article that says nothing about them). In addition, Snozzwanger's diff clearly shows why these are a problem in their current state. Tavix |  Talk 21:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete all. I argued for keeping in the previous RfD, but given the possibility for similar situations Snozzwanger was in, these redirects become a net negative. There's no need for a redirect if the target article says nothing about the search term, and as Aervanath points out, having the search term as a redlink may actually encourage people to create the article. Jafeluv (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Not very useful. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

José Galvez
The result of the discussion was keep. Plausible redirect.--Aervanath (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Delete José Galvez is the name of a person and this redirect makes no reference to a football club. Also, if someone would know that the "´" goes on the e of Jose then they would most likely know that the "´" goes on the a of Galvez. Therefore I believe that it is highly unlikely that anyone would type this redirect. MicroX (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → José Gálvez FBC
 * Keep. Someone might know the correct spelling of José (because it's a very common name), but still not know how to write Gálvez. There's no harm in having a redirect in place for those kinds of people. Jafeluv (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Homonormativity
The result of the discussion was keep. The topic is now covered in the target article.--Aervanath (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - The current article (Heteronormativity) does not cover this material at all, and I do not see that the previous incarnations of the article meet the requirements for verifiability. Mintrick (talk) 01:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Heteronormativity
 * Comment. was merged into Heteronormativity on 22 November. The material was then removed by another editor on 14 February. If the content is to be used in Heteronormativity, this article should be kept, as it holds some of the edit history of the content. This is explained in Merge and delete. Jafeluv (talk) 11:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the edit history problem can be solved by moving the history to a subpage of hetero. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 06:33, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The article covers the material (now), and it makes sense there. Irn (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

5 Octover Overthrow
The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 06:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Delete - unlikely typo of this term Ohconfucius (talk) 09:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → 5th October (Serbia)
 * Delete. agreed. Tavix |  Talk 16:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - That's not even how you spell it in Serbian. (It's октобар, not октовар.)  --  Thinking of England (talk) 10:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems like an unlikely typo. Oddly though, the redirect does get some monthly page views, even without incoming links. Jafeluv (talk) 08:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Atheist's Wager)
The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 06:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC) Delete. Obscure typo (single, mismatched close-parentheses). Not linked. No discussion page or non-trivial history. Thinking of England (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Atheist's Wager
 * Delete Per Nom. KMFDM FAN (talk!) 22:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per ). Tavix |  Talk 23:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlikely typo. Jafeluv (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)