Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 May 20

May 20
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 20, 2009

Mcroll'd
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Not mentioned in target. Seems unlikely. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * → Rickrolling
 * Comment I merely closed the AFD, you would want to notify, not me.  MBisanz  talk 17:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Darn Twinkle. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

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

Awesome works
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC) Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 16:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Rickrolling
 * Delete per nom, don't appear to be related to each other.  American Eagle  ( talk ) 22:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: no apparent connection, not mentioned in the target article, and no significant edit history or incoming links. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 01:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Senate objection to certification of Ohio's 2004 electoral votes
The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC) Delete - unlikely search string and misleading redirect, as it implies that there was a more substantive objection in the Senate when in fact Boxer was the only Senator to object. Otto4711 (talk) 09:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * → Barbara Boxer
 * Delete Keep Neutral, possibly rename . This was created following discussion at Category talk:2004 United States election voting controversies, as a compromise to allow categorisation there of the relevant part of Barbara Boxer's article. So it serves a useful purpose, despite being an unlikely search target. I have no objection to it being renamed to something like Objection filed in the Senate to certification of Ohio's 2004 electoral votes if that would satisfy the nominator. -- Avenue (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also not object to its deletion if an alternative compromise can be found, although the nominator's apparent reluctance to discuss any proposed compromise is not helping there. -- Avenue (talk) 09:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not just cover the five sentences' worth of material in 2004 United States election voting controversies where it is currently not even mentioned, and which article is already in the category, instead of making unnecessary redirects? Otto4711 (talk) 21:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea, and worth a try. If it survives a couple of days there, I'll reconsider my !vote here. -- Avenue (talk) 23:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This problem arose because the article 2004 United States election voting controversies was originally written as an overall summary, with links to multiple daughter articles that set forth such details as Boxer's role. An AfD directed at the daughter articles was closed as "merge", despite the absence of consensus for that close, and then almost none of the material was actually merged. JamesMLane t c 21:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've changed my "keep" to "neutral", since the addition to the controversies article seems to have been accepted. I don't see that the redirect does any harm, but my main reason for creating it (to help people aware of controversies, but not their specifics, find this information) now no longer applies. -- Avenue (talk) 05:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * On reflection, delete. It may not do any harm, but it doesn't do much good either. -- Avenue (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep, its primary purpose is not a search target, but rather as a placeholder within the category. It's a much better solution than jamming biography articles into such categories based on one likely non-defining incident in their lives.  Though Otto does have a good point about just covering the material in the article, as long as there's a category for that article as well (a recent CFD was closed no consensus), the redirects are a good compromise.  Postdlf (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - an exemplary use of the 'categorisation of redirects'. Occuli (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: For what its worth, Im one of the few editors who watches 2004 United States election voting controversies and I think the additions Avenue mentioned above are just fine. Bonewah (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was indeed "an exemplary use of the 'categorisation of redirects'"; however, since the information is now contained in 2004 United States election voting controversies, there is no need for this redirect to remain as a placeholder within the category. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 01:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. I understand why this was created, but it's not really needed now the information has been added to 2004 United States election voting controversies; plus, I'm not a fan of redirects in categories pretending to be articles. I don't think there's any further value to this one. Robofish (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)