Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 13

October 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 13, 2009

I'm A Non-Entity, Get Me Out Of Here
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → I'm a Celebrity…Get Me Out of Here! (links to redirect)

Pejorative redirect, not mentioned on target page; does not seem to be notable as a nickname for this show. Robofish (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * It's a potentially confusing redirect title... Get it out of Wikipedia! Deletion is clearly the best option since since we don't deal with parody, and there appear no Wikipedia articles on any parodies of the self-parodying target. B.Wind (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * keep as while a parody of the proper title it is commonly used instead of it e.g. PaulJones (talk) 09:57, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete --- I'm a big advocate of keeping notable parody redirects but I don't think this is notable and the search term seems basically implausible. There's almost not traffic to this redirect. — m a k o ๛  01:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - Makes sense, but such variations are standard fare for bloggers and columnists and there is hardly any benefit to redirect all of the different, mostly one-off, variations and spellings with which one can allude to the show.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I May Never Find
The result of the discussion was delete. The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → Chris Brown (album) (links to redirect)
 * → Chris Brown (album) (links to redirect)

Implausible search term, as "I May Never Find" is not mentioned anywhere in Chris Brown (album). If anything, this is probably a song that was leaked on the internet. — ξ xplicit  21:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Beyonce Knowles' third studio album
The result of the discussion was Delete. The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → I Am… Sasha Fierce (links to redirect)

Temporary redirect, has served its purpose. No reason to believe this search term is plausible. — ξ xplicit  20:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Beyoncé's forthcoming album
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → I Am… Sasha Fierce (links to redirect)

Obscure redirect, as this can allude to any possible future album by Beyoncé Knowles. Redirects to I Am… Sasha Fierce, which was released nearly a year ago and makes this search term both unclear and unlikely. — ξ xplicit  20:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - its usefulness is long gone. This is clearly a temporary name... and if it's kept, it will cause problems when Beyoncé's next album is announced. B.Wind (talk) 17:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete: the redirect is no longer valid for the article it points to, and probably shouldn't have existed in the first place. DigitalC (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Vinica,(Tomislavgrad,BiH)
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → Vinica (Bosnia and Herzegovina) (links to redirect)

My bold statement is: Nobody is going to search for that term. Law Lord (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - this highly improbable search term is now a redirect due to a recent move to its current name. Since the history is located at the target's location, there is no reason for keeping this redirect. B.Wind (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Cheers. --Law Lord (talk) 17:56, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - as "mover" (not creator), pretty improbable search. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 18:15, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Canadian Civil War
The result of the discussion was No consensus to delete. A dab page might help the reader better, though. Tikiwont (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → Rebellions of 1837 (links to redirect)

I don't think Canadian Civil War should redirect here. First, Canada wasn't even a country. Second, I've never heard anyone call the Rebellion of 1837 a civil war. It makes sense too because Canada was not a country and they were rebelling against the British rule. Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're suggesting. I've never heard of the rebellions called "Canadian Civil War", so in my opinion the article (which is currently merely a redirect) shouldn't have been created. That having been said, since it HAS been created it is best to keep it as a redirect to Rebellions of 1837, in spite of the issues you pointed out. IMO, the question is whether Canadian Civil War should be deleted.  PK T (alk)  12:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "IMO, the question is whether Canadian Civil War should be deleted." - Presumably that's the question Everyone Dies In the End intended to raise by bringing it to a deletion discussion. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment: I think it might be a useful redirect, in that for someone trying to find information about the rebellion, but not knowing what is was called, might get redirected. I certainly would not accept a redirect in the other direction, but I don't know what harm is caused by having this redirect. DigitalC (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as there are too many possibilities that could conceivably have Wikipedia articles (well... eventually). A Google search shows many different uses of the phrase "Canadian Civil War" (most common occurrence, but not the dominant one: articles mentioning Canadians who participated in the American Civil War). Other uses include a 1977 board game ("Canadian Civil War"), Killing Ground: The Canadian Civil War (1968 novel by Bruce Powe writing as "Ellis Portal"), and various newspaper, magazine, and Internet articles referring a "Canadian Civil War" as a bar fight between hockey fans. There were much more than that in the form of blogs and other non-reliable sources that were speculating on a possible future "Canadian Civil War." Because of all of this, deletion would be best. Should the book get an article, a good argument could be made for a disambiguation page (with two bluelinks), but a redirect before then would be misleading. B.Wind (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabify I have heard of these referred to as a Canadian "civil war", I have also heard of the Riel Rebellions referred to as such as well. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 20:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dabify as per above. The fact that there are many possibilities (and a board game!) are reason that this should point to a dab, not good reason to delete it. This redirects gets a pretty consistent stream of traffic and I don't think our users would be well served by deleting it. — m a k o ๛  01:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

3333
The result of the discussion was Mass-deleted, user blocked. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → 34th century (links to redirect)

Previously deleted, spam redirect by user with history of bans for abuse of editing privileges. User:Nezzadar (speak) 04:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

2785
The result of the discussion was Mass-deleted, user blocked. DMacks (talk) 05:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → 28th century (links to redirect)

Okay, this needs to stop, NOW. This guy has created pages for every number he could find. It serves no purpose, and takes perfectly good pages and chews them up so other people can't use them without going through the extra three steps. User:Nezzadar (speak) 02:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, and why should 2785 point to 28th century anyway? Any given number could mean all kinds of things. There's no reason to suppose that even if someone did run a search for "2785", that he had the year 2785 in mind, or that there'd be anything of interest to him in 28th Century. —Largo Plazo (talk) 04:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibility, just checking up on another thing I'm watching. Could this be the sockpuppeter MascotGuy, it says that he "Wikifies dates" as part of his abuse pattern. User:Nezzadar (speak) 04:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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