Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 5

Wikipedia:Books/FinnicPaganism → Wikipedia:Books/Finnic Paganism
 The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia-Book moved this redirect is not useful anymore, as it is the result of not spacing correctly the name. I would speedy, but doesn't meet any criteria. Cerejota (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Please fix up the incoming links. --- RockMFR 16:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Elonka → Elonka Dunin
The result of the discussion was Keep per WP:SNOW. Non admin closure.  §hawn poo   23:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC) This is not a valid redirect. Elonka may be her WP handle, but that is no reason to redirect her first name to her own article. This was done back in 2006, and I'm sure it wouldn't be done now. A quick google found many many other people called and uses of the term "Elonka". Verbal  chat  20:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - If and when there are other articles on Wikipedia about other people, places or things named Elonka, then we can build a simple disambiguation page. I also feel that the nature of the original nomination of this deletion request was an exercise in bad faith. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith. Hipocrite (talk) 20:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh, the attack sure didn't take long. The original one may or may not have been good or bad, but what's that got to do with now? Different person, different request, not an excuse to attack some other person. Geez, some people, I tellya. DreamGuy (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The original nom was clearly an execise in bad faith (or "civil disobedience" as that editor likes to call it). I really don't think that is arguable at this point (and in light of X5 I don't understand why the edit hasn't yet been followed by serious reprocussion). The nom was reverted and then that revert was reverted (hence this subsequent follow-up nom). Reverting a revert of a bad faith edit in itself is not necessarily an act of bad faith. That said, the motivations for the nom are not really all that germane to this conversation and I therefore apologize for even bringing them up. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you are just ignorant of how WP:PROD works. Please read up on proposed deletion. It is neither dickish nor inapropriate to xFD something after a failed PROD. You state that it is "reasonably clear ... bad faith." I apologize again, but per WP:AGF, which you should probably reread as you may have forgotten it, "reasonably clear" is not an acceptable standard to assume bad faith of people who disagree with you. You'll want to be certain that the reason people are doing things is to harm, not help, the encyclopedia before you accuse them of trying to harm the encyclopedia. I suggest you redact everything you have written on this page after "simple disambiguation page..." and endeavor to assume that everyone is operating either out of ignorance of policy/procedure or with a different belief as to what is helpful/harmful, rather than assuming the bad faith of people who disagree with you. While your apology is nice, you should probably make it directly to the people you assumed the bad faith of. Hipocrite (talk) 22:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I certainly don't think the listing was in bad faith. Vanity content on Wikipedia is a real problem. Just because you disagree that that's what this is doesn't mean you get to attack them, even if you choose to interpret it as an attack on Elonka. And, frankly, Elonka seems to have some major tag-teamers on her side, as whenever anything that might impact her article pops up the same old people appear out of he woodwork to defend her. WP:KETTLE applies here. If you think you can assume they are acting in bad faith then why wouldn't they be able to say the same about you? You are the one jumping to wishing some other editor has some serious repercussion heading his way. Your actions seem to contradict the very principles you say you to want to enforce. DreamGuy (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have redacted the comments made about the motivation for this current nom. While it seems obvious to me, Hipocrite is correct about the acceptable standards of WP:AGF. Apologies to the re-nominator. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Q: What's obvious? Verbal   chat  14:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Redirects are cheap. If other "Elonkas" have possible notability (Stephen Michael Elonka, most notably), just edit the Redirect to a Disambig. Hipocrite (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If the redirect is improper, create an article about the name "Elonka" as a name, or a disambiguation page for people/companies/whatever named Elonka. Problem solved, right? Except when I did a search I couldn't find any uses of that name that'd be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and it's so rare that I'm not sure we can find anything reliable on the name's meaning or history to write something up. Hell, Elonka Dunin herself probably technically isn't even notable enough for an article if it weren't for the fact that she did such a thorough job of promoting herself and making friends who protected her edits, so what are the odds we can find anyone else notable enough? What practical solution would you suggest? Right now, as much as I am offended at the vanity involved in creating the redirect in the first place, I don't know what can really be done with it other than what it's currently doing. What would you like to see done with it? DreamGuy (talk) 20:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleted as a vanity edit from 2006 that is best removed and forgotten. Verbal   chat  21:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I think that ship sailed after three failed attempts to delete the Elonka Dunin article. DreamGuy (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, it forced the article to be cited properly. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask what that had to do with what I said, but this page shouldn't be used for side conversations, so nevermind. DreamGuy (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep so long as Ms. Dunin has an actual encyclopedia article on Wikipedia. The fact that she also has a user account is irrelevat, bcause this isn't pointing to it. If there are other notable things named "Elonka", that calls for a dabpage; if Ms. Dunin isn't notable, then the target article should be taken to Articles for deletion. So long as she does have an article, though, a redirect from her unusual first name is not a problem simply because it is also the name of her user account. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Elonka Dunin appears to be the only article we have currently that contains "Elonka". I think it's fine for it to remain a redirect to that article for now, and if another page containing "Elonka" is created, then the redirect can become a disambiguation. Acalamari 21:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Srsly? As per Hipocrite. --Cerejota (talk) 23:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep just make a disambiguation page when someone else called "Elonka" gets a wikipedia article. Redirects are cheap and stuff, this redirect does not mislead people to the wrong article since it's the only existing article that applies. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also, if no other articles exist that use that first name, then wiki's own search functions should be adequate to direct the person to the proper article. -- BlueSquadron Raven  15:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Just noticed who created the redirect in the first place. Add vanity to the list of reasons. -- BlueSquadron Raven  16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Disclaimer: I know Elonka in the real world. However, as a librarian who is interested I would agree with Enric Naval, et al (above). The point is whether or not this re-direct aids searchers. If there are many "Elonkas" then create a disambiguation link. My (limited) experience on wikipedia is that the initial use of a redirect occurs when there is only one relevant article. As more articles come about, a disambiguation page becomes the norm. Other Elonkas on wikipedia? Let me know. And, yes, redirects are cheap. Discussions like this are not. Why is this even an issue? --Quartermaster (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

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

To Be Continued Brass Band (TBC) → To Be Continued Brass Band
 The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 06:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Delete – (TBC) is not part of the name of the band, it is an abbreviation of part of its name expressed as if it were a disambiguator. As such, this redirect consists of the article name with an unhelpful and confusing disambiguator. The page should be deleted. Rogerb67 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * delete extremely unlikely that someone searches for that instead of searching for the name of the target article. Looking at google, the exact wording gets a few hits from a 2006 press release using it, and all the rest are caused by wikipedia mirrors. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete That's about as ridiculous as it gets. The target article is much more likely to be searched for. singlish_speaker♫ (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * delete as per nom. PaulJones (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Accountcreator → Wikipedia:Request an account
The result of the discussion was speedy delete in accordance with WP:CSD. Acalamari 02:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Why isn't Twinkle doing this for me!? Anyway, it's another cross-namespace redirect. This one's not even useful. flaminglawyer 02:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete Cross-space redirect, probably qualifies as speedy under WP:CSD. Looking at the creation message, it appears to be a temporary solution for technical reasons. Also, "what links here" only shows links related to this deletion discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)