Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 23

November 23
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 23, 2009

Bitch cunt
The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Vulgarism (links to redirect)

I see no need for this redirect. Even if these two words are strung together, they hardly produce a vulgarity - they're just two words (one obscene, one not) strung together. This is also the only redirect of an "obscene" term that points to vulgarism. It just seems strange to me - one would expect it to point to cunt, bitch, or if you want to get scientific about it canine reproduction, but in reality it doesn't really need to point to anything - are people really searching for "bitch cunt" on Wikipedia? NellieBly (talk) 23:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as vandalism. ApprenticeFan  talk  contribs 00:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unknown phrase/word. Wikipedia is not a place to try to justify the existence of your favorite insult. Even then, we very rarely just have slag terms as articles unless there's some larger societal context. A redirect needs to be of something notable as well, if it's redirecting into something on the larger scale. This is... not. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, it has multiple possible targets, yet it wouldn't be suitable as a disambig page. It isn't a likely search term either. --Taelus (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, Taelus' points are the most convincing. I don't think this is vandalism, but if a delete doesn't happen I think redirecting to canine reproduction would be a most... appropriate... outcome. Josh Parris 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Tard Blog
The result of the discussion was Delete. Possibly misleading. Tikiwont (talk) 19:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Tucker Max (links to redirect)

Seems to be an offensive, pejorative, POV nickname for the blog. The subject of the article doesn't call his blog "Tard Blog" anywhere on his website. NellieBly (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - while it appears to have been created in good faith in 2006 (see initial edit comment in history), it does not appear to pertain to the target. There is a "Tard Blog" that is often mentioned in a Google search (www.tard-blog.com - about 60,000 Ghits), but we have no article about such a blog... and no indication of having one here in the foreseeable future. Thus we have a redirect with no valid target. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not helping the target article. Josh Parris 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

DevCybiko.us
The result of the discussion was Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * → Cybiko (links to redirect)

Looks like an advertising redirect. Message from XENUcomplaints? leave me a message! 22:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete, no edit. Oddly, I must have missed this being posted here... but did find this and did a detailed check on its PROD validity resulting in a prod-2 placed. Included in my opinion was this suspicious advert redirect demonstrating questionable intentions. The article page also contained a circular redirect to this, with the RfD discussion being the only reason it was stopped (I removed the wikification of these in the article). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete According to the edit history it seems to have been created as community site and then was redirected, so not necessarily problematic intentions but no useful content underneath either.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Cases
The result of the discussion was Keep. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 05:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC) Delete without prejudice to recreation. These redirects all point to WP:Notability_(law), which is a proposed draft of a guideline or policy. There is no consensus around it, and progress and discussions around it seem to have stalled for at least four months. However, in at least one AfD discussion, the page has been cited to as an authority, apparently under the misapprehension that it is an actual policy or guideline. I think assigning WP: shortcuts is premature, and that that should only be done if and when the page has a guideline or policy status. I've brought this up on the appropriate talk page before bringing it to RfD. There were no responses, probably because the proposal project has stalled; but in any case, no objections were made. TJRC (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Wikipedia:Notability_(law) (links to redirect)
 * → Wikipedia:Notability_(law) (links to redirect)
 * → Wikipedia:Notability_(law) (links to redirect)
 * → Wikipedia:Notability_(law) (links to redirect)
 * → Wikipedia:Notability_(law) (links to redirect)
 * → Wikipedia:Notability_(law) (links to redirect)
 * → Wikipedia:Notability_(law) (links to redirect)


 * Keep for now as they point to the appropriate section of the proposal. If it appears that the proposal has been abandoned, I'd suggest taking the proposal to WP:MfD instead - if it's deleted, the shortcuts will go with it into oblivion; if it's kept, the short cuts should stay as well... at least until someone has a better use for them. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My point, though, is that having official-looking shortcuts to proposals that have not been adopted, and may never be adopted, is misleading. There seems little use for shortcuts to unadopted draft policies.  My suggestion is that they be deleted, and re-added if and when there is something that merits having a shortcut, i.e. a policy or guideline.  I don't see the point of shortcuts to drafts that may go nowhere. TJRC (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The catch is that even essays have short cuts (which are condoned by Wikipedia policy), and sometimes guidelines are magically turned into essays instead of policies. If the target merits deletion, then take it to MfD; otherwise, it might be better to let sleeping dogs lie. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as they benefit navigation, I do not believe that WP namespace redirects need to point only to official policy, as pointed out above many essays have shortcuts. These should be deleted if the proposals fail/are abandoned, but that can probably be performed by the admin that closes such discussions. --Taelus (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, reiterate everything 147.70.242.54 says. I'll be there when you raise the WP:MfD proposal. Josh Parris 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, given the difficulty in deleting a proposal which hasn't gained consensus. I just tried to raise the WP:MfD proposal and got shot down by the guidelines. Josh Parris 10:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hëävÿ mëtäl ümläüt
The result of the discussion was Delete. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 05:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * → Metal umlaut (links to redirect)

Delete as pointless and facetious. Nothing links to it. 188.221.240.150 (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Netural Keep, good old fashioned fun, Hëävÿ_mëtäl_ümläüt has been viewed 5 times in 200909 so they're coming in via external links. Josh Parris 10:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that could just be Special:Random.Josh Parris 05:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Ofo language
The result of the discussion was pagemove performed. This type of uncontroversial page move falls under speedy deletion criterion G6 (technical deletions) and can be requested using the template db-move. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 19:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * → Ofo Language (links to redirect)

Delete redirect so article can be moved to more reasonable location. The "L" in "Language" generally isn't capitalized in wikipedia. I would like to speedy it, but I'm not sure it qualifies for speedy deletion. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as a redirect from alternative capitalisation - the redirect is already tagged as such. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to reverse redirect per NullofWest (below). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is consensus to move Ofo Language to Ofo language then it qualifies as a G6 (Speedy Housekeeping). I say Switch Article with Redirect following the nom's reasoning.NullofWest Fill the Void 22:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:PIKA
The result of the discussion was speedy delete under criterion G7 (creator consents to deletion). –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 19:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * → Wikipedia:Changing username (links to redirect)

A redirect not linked to anywhere on the project. Linking it to Changing Username simply does not make sense. NW ( Talk ) 04:32, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment - The editor who created the redirect apparently has no objection to its deletion. TJRC (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)