Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 6

October 6
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 6, 2009

Munster (temp)
The result of the discussion was Histmerge where appropriate, then delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:06, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - another batch of redirects that have names indicating that they're temporary. There's no reason to keep these "temporary" redirects, even those that have more than slight history (like Porifera/Temp, England/Temp, and Lithuania/temp - these can be histmerged to another redirect to the current targets). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Münster (links to redirect)
 * → Bride services (links to redirect) 
 * → Reprocessed uranium (links to redirect) 
 * → Rand Dyck (links to redirect) 
 * → County class cruiser (links to redirect) 
 * → Maize (links to redirect) 
 * → Luigi Orione (links to redirect) 
 * → X-Men (links to redirect) 
 * → Sea sponge (links to redirect) 
 * → England (links to redirect) 
 * → Lithuania (links to redirect) 

Takeshi Miyajima
The result of the discussion was '''Delete all per arguments made during the discussion. Akihisa Yukawa was deleted as well. Even if her daughter is famous, I do not believe that is enough for the redirect.'''. NW ( Talk ) 19:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → Japan Airlines Flight 123 (links to redirect)

I really don't know the point of this redirect, I mean redirecting the victims' names to the Japan Airlines Flight 123 is unnecessary and pointless, plus it is a total waste of time and inconvience to those who wish to create an article of those with similar namesakes of those who I have nominated. In a hindsight, I would like to point out that Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Altogether, all of these have failed WP:NOTABILITY.

I am also nominating the following related pages for that same reason above:

Donnie Park (talk) 22:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * have you checked whether any of them might actually be otherwise notable.?  DGG ( talk ) 23:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have and none of these qualify other than their fellow namesakes, these lot nominated are pilots, ground crews and passengers, I mean when have plane crash victims (other than those being notable prior to an accident) of a commercial airliner ever qualified for notability. Donnie Park (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I think the four survivors on this flight should survive as redirects to the article. "Akihisa Yukawa" is specifically mentioned in the article as being famous dead person from the flight. Otherwise, the flight crew might be useful redirects due to their handling of the aircraft. Any other redirects are likely safe to delete. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 04:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Akihisa Yukawa isn't notable other than having a now famous daughter that he never had the chance of seeing. Donnie Park (talk) 11:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete all. Why do we even mention the names of the passengers in the first place? Including them doesn't seem to do anything to increase the reader's understanding of the topic, and is probably against the practices described in WP:BLPNAME. Certainly readers are not very likely to use these names as search terms. Akihisa Yukawa is kind of a special case, but if that one is kept, I would recommend retargeting it to Diana Yukawa. Jafeluv (talk) 12:15, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Bank International Indonesia
The result of the discussion was delete. Closedmouth (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → BII (links to redirect)

Delete. BII is a disambiguation page, and one of the entries on that page is for "Bank International Indonesia"; this is likely to be extremely confusing to new users, because anyone who clicks on that link will just see the disambiguation page reload itself. It would be clearer to have a red link there (or, even better, have someone write an actual article about this bank). R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete per nom. It is listed at List of banks, but it would be better off as a redlink than a redirect. -- ToET 00:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete redirect and list at Requested articles. The institution deserves a standalone article, not a redirect to a disambiguation page.147.70.242.54 (talk) 01:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

<span id="Martin_Krafft">Martin_Krafft
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was Delete. Jafeluv (talk) 07:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

deletion, it makes no sense to have name redirects to a book. By reason 3.1.4, I thus request their deletion. madduck (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → The_Debian_System (links to redirect)
 * → The_Debian_System (links to redirect) <span id="Martin_Felix_Krafft">
 * → The_Debian_System (links to redirect) <span id="Martin_F._Krafft">
 * → The_Debian_System (links to redirect) <span id="Martin_F_Krafft">
 * strong oppose It makes very good sense. He's the author of the book, and we do not have an article on him. We should always make a redirect in such a case.   DGG ( talk ) 23:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * there used to be an article on me, but it fell prey to a deletionist. I either want my article back or not have my name redirected to a book. madduck (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep . I don't know that we should "always" have such redirects, but it's often reasonable to do so. I see no reason why it's bad in this case. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC) Update: The named subject's objection to having their name as a redirect is a reason why it's bad in this case. If there's no prospect of further coverage, I support deletion. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am a person and not a book. My name is that of a person, not that of a book. When people look up my name, they may well do so for other reasons than my book, so it's distracting if they get my book shoved in their face. madduck (talk) 07:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I say give the guy a break, and remove the redirects per the request. This seems most compatible with the spirit of deferring a bit to living persons.  It also does seem reasonable for a living person to be irritated about being equated to a book. doncram (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

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

Pit of voles
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete. Closedmouth (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → FanFiction.Net (links to redirect)

Derogatory slang term. No reliable sources indicating its use is commonplace. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

bunch of WikiProject NHRP-related cross-namespace redirects
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete all. Closedmouth (talk) 07:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC) The current Database reports/Cross-namespace redirects shows 10 WikiProject NRHP cross-namespace redirects, which apparently are bad. I think i am responsible for all of these. One was in a batch deleted previously in Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 8, which I then immediately re-created. IIRC, I re-created because a) its deletion was disruptive, undercutting ongoing discussions where it was used frequently, b) i didn't appreciate the "problem" of having a cross-namespace redirect, and c) maybe i was miffed about how the redirect was deleted, perhaps with inadequate notice and direction to me or WikiProject NRHP, i don't remember exactly.

Anyhow, for all ten of the following, i have gone through usage of the redirects and tried to convert them all (e.g. replacing links to "NRIS info issues" by links to "wp:NRIS info issues" instead). The following ten redirects could/should now be deleted:
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/Disambiguation
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/NHL_information_issues
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/NRHP_articles_needing_attention
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/NRIS_information_issues
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/NRIS_information_issues
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/NRIS_information_issues_Batch_report_No._1
 * → Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Register_of_Historic_Places/ProgressOnNHLsByState
 * → Category:NRHP_dab_needing_cleanup
 * → Category:NRHP_dab_needing_cleanup

These have now been replaced in practice by direct links and by six shortcuts that are not cross-space ones (wp:List_of_fully_illustrated_NRHP_lists, wp:NRHP_dab_issues, wp:NHL_info_issues, wp:NRHP_attention, wp:NRIS_info_issues, and wp:NHL_progress, and there is similar wp:NHLs 2008 ). I think now that deleting all of the cross-namespace redirects is fine. doncram (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * I would agree with deleting them all. However, since you created them all, you can simply tag every one as WP:CSD so a discussion isn't necessary unless you want to create G4 deletion precedent, which probably isn't necessary unless you fear someone else will recreate them. VegaDark (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I had to look that up. Maybe i do want that?  Also won't this process give a nice record in the deletion, linking to this write-up?  I think i'd like for that, while my impression of speedy-deletions is that they provide little lasting explanation.  Also, i don't know, someone associated with NRHP or otherwise might have some comment.  There's no urgency to doing this, so i don't mind waiting for the RFD discussion period to close. doncram (talk) 19:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WillOakland
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete. Closedmouth (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WillOakland → Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gazpacho (links to redirect)
 * Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WillOakland → Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Gazpacho (links to redirect)  - Added to nomination on 21:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete - Per precedent here and here, consensus has determined that sockpuppet redirect categories are a bad idea. VegaDark (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment: It's an empty cat, so as long as the parent cat is used, no worries. :) Cirt (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you mean here. It is empty, but redirects are exempt from the C1 speedy deletion criteria if that is what you are getting at. If that isn't what you are talking about, I'm not quite sure how that has any bearing on the rationale given for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Also adding Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of WillOakland to the nomination as the reasoning to keep or delete should be nearly identical. VegaDark (talk) 21:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fibonacci series using c language
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was delete. Closedmouth (talk) 07:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → Fibonacci number (links to redirect)

Delete as misleading, since the target article contains no such code. This was created as a redirect but with the code for a short program following the redirect. The only other edits by the creator Hsadia90 (talk) were adding this same code below the redirect. A kind-hearted editor moved that code into a section in Fibonacci number which was promptly deleted. This redirect does average one hit per day, but does not deliver what it promises. (Nor would the article benefit from sample sequence generators written in a dozen different languages.) -- ToET 10:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - about as useful as Fibonacci sequence using FORTRAN. Mathematically, there is a huge difference between the Fibonacci sequence and the series based on it. So... not only do we have something too far afield from an actual piece of terminology here, but the specific inclusion of a piece of computer code runs afoul of WP:NOT (it's not a compendium of miscellaneous computer programming). B.Wind (talk) 06:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

SmartPen
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was retarget. Closedmouth (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → Health Decisions (links to redirect)

Delete. There is a new category of device called smart pens that deserve a Wikipedia page, but this redirect sends the viewer to one minor use of such a device rather than anything about smart pens per se. Matthew C. Clarke 09:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Is there currently a page for these devices? If this term is in common usage for a broad class of pens/technology, I agree that the redirect shouldn't go to HealthDec's page. But where is the content to replace the redirect? If the content exists, I request adding a disambig link or "this may also refer to..." to go to HealthDec's technology because as far as I know they used the term for patented tech for a long time without other usage. Thanks for your attentiveness!--Xris0 (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just retargeted the redirect to Livescribe as the name is owned by Livescribe and the target article has a section on this product. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That target is slightly better, but I believe the term "smart pen" goes beyond Livescribe's claim on "SmartPen". Other uses of the term can be found for instance at http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/paq/pen.html, http://www.oregonscientific.com.au/cat-Babies-and-Kids-sub-SmartGlobe-prod-Smart-Pen.html and http://www.dealsdirect.com.au/p/lenoxx-inote-smart-pen-note-taker/. I cannot identify a better target, but would support Xris0's suggestion of a disambig page.  Matthew C. Clarke  10:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note the difference in presentation between SmartPen and smart pen. The former is a trademark, the latter likely not. The nominated redirect is clearly the former. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

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

<span id="Rúbéńs Bářřǐĉħèľľó">Rúbéńs Bářřǐĉħèľľó
<div class="boilerplate mfd" style="background:#FFEEDD; margin-top:0.5em; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #888888;">The result of the discussion was Speedy Delete per CSD R3 --Taelus (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → Rubens Barrichello (links to redirect)

Delete. This appears to not be from any language and is instead a respelling of a person's name using any available similar character available in the editing page. Will never serves its purpose as a redirect as no one will ever search for this name spelled in this fashion. IIIVIX ( Talk ) 08:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, the user concerned has created a large number of pointless redirects from future events to dubious mispellings. Perhaps a warning is called for. --Falcadore (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that those other creations may be Lithuanian, but they certainly should be deleted. -- ToET 10:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Should they then be added to this RfD? --Falcadore (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the whole batch would qualify for WP:CSD. -- ToET 13:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And the whole batch was deleted WP:CSD. -- ToET 10:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (speedy?) - a search of "Rúbéńs Bářřǐĉħèľľó" (without parentheses) turns up only one hit: the redirect in question. Either "Rúbéńs Bářřǐĉħèľľó" is a case of vandalism or a good faith contribution of an ambitious editor who has simply gone too far. Since this is less than a week old, it's possible that WP:CSD would apply as a most highly improbable typographical error. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy Delete per The359 et al. X X X antiuser 21:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)