Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 11

September 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 11, 2009

Simple_present
The result of the discussion was closed and moved to WP:RM instead. Jafeluv (talk) 18:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → present_simple (links to redirect)

The article present simple should be renamed simple present as that is the name of the tense that is used. However due to thr existance of the redirect page, I am unable to move the page. Île_flottante~Floating island   Talk  23:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Close discussion - wrong forum. This sounds like something that should be addressed in WP:Requested moves. If the request is simply to reverse the redirect, tagging with will help do the trick (with assistance from an admin) if the request is uncontroversial. B.Wind (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with B.Wind totally. I've gone ahead and marked that article with . As soon as that's been acted on, someone should close this discussion. — m a k o  ๛  04:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion was denied. It seems that WP:RM would be the appropriate next move. B.Wind (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * I agree that this is the wrong forum for this type of thing. I disagree, however, with Île_flottant's assessment, supported by the statistics I laid out on the article's talk page.  —Zach425 talk / contribs 05:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

India in the 2007 Twenty20 World Championship
The result of the discussion was delete. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → 2007 ICC World Twenty20 (links to redirect)

Pointless redirect. Article does not talk only about India, but about all participants. warrior 4321  21:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - this page was added around a year ago as a bizarre quasi-advertisement stub, then turned into a redirect instead of being deleted. —Zach425 talk / contribs 04:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete -- There are no incoming links, only a minuscule amount of incoming traffic, and no real reason to keep this around. This would be a full delete vote if there was a plausible argument that this was causing real harm. — m a k o ๛  04:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - not a likely search term. As the winner of a major sporting tournament there is some scope for an article but this is not it. Bridgeplayer (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." Rich Farmbrough, 15:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

The Book of Mudora
The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik_ Zero 07:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (links to redirect)

The Book of Mudora is not once mentioned in the article. warrior 4321  21:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I decided to be bold and retargeted to Comics from The Legend of Zelda series. The Book of Mudora was one of the chapters in this series.  The old target site had an image of a comic named The Book of Mudora, so I looked a bit further into it and ended up expanding the new target.  I think it's now an appropriate redirect.  —Zach425 talk / contribs 04:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Other than the image, the article does not talk at all about the book, which makes it a pointless redirect. A wikipedian who is looking for this book gets redirected to that section, and all he finds is the text in a photo caption? It does not provide the reader with any information about the book. warrior  4321  04:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure if we're talking about the same article - I added a list of the "chapters" in A Link to the Past to Comics from The Legend of Zelda series before adding my post here. While there's certainly not an abundance of information about The Book of Mudora, at least now the viewer will have some context.  —Zach425 talk / contribs 05:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as retargetted -- If the new, appropriate, target article doesn't mention the book maybe it should. As it is, it seems like it's pointing to the right place. — m a k o ๛  04:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, other than it being said as being a chapter of the book, it provides the reader with no information. However, the new redirect is atleast better than the old one. warrior  4321  17:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Veiculo Lançado de Microssatelites



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was speedily deleted by User:Protonk, CSD G7 (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 00:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Title is misspelled in Portuguese. Note that Veiculo Lançador de Microssatelites (the correct spelling) also redirects to Microsatellite Launch Vehicle. That should suffice. Cnilep (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Microsatellite Launch Vehicle (links to redirect)
 * Deleted. You may request that pages you created and are the sole or effectively the sole editor of be deleted by tagging them for speedy deletion using db-author or an equivalent template. Protonk (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Khorium
The result of the discussion was Delete. NOINDEX should not be used in the mainspace, because if this redirect is not indexed, what is it for? Ruslik_ Zero 07:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC) The name of a minor resource contained in a minor piece of gameplay content within the redirect target. It is an unlikely search term, and the target article will never contain information regarding to this as it is not notable. Either way, any user searching this term will turn to Wikia or Google eventually, thus redirecting them to somewhere they will be unable to ever find information about it is harmful and not beneficial to the project. Taelus (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → World of Warcraft (links to redirect)
 * It's harmless, redirects are cheap and it points to the correct target. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Weak Keep, but add NOINDEX so that on a Google search it does not look like we have information about Khorium.--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Khorium is not mentioned in the target page, so while a redirect to World of Warcraft may send the user to a relevant topic, it does not give them any information about what Khorium is or how it's related to the target. While redirects are indeed cheap, I think it's better to tell a searcher that Khorium isn't covered by Wikipedia than to send them looking through the World of Warcraft site for information that isn't there.  --Zach425 talk / contribs 03:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It makes no sense to redirect a user to an article which contains no information about the original subject. warrior  4321  04:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete -- The redirect seems to point to the "right" place but seems slightly more likely to confuse a person being sent there than to convey any useful information on the topic. A redirect would convey that it was from WoW, but even this would be lost on most people redirected to this article. — m a k o ๛  17:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment the natural place for this to point would be Glossary of WoW, but this would likely be merged back into one of the WoW articels adn the content then deleted as fancruft. Nonethless it is a shame if WP does not answer the question "What is Khorium?"  even if "somethign to do with WoW" is nto as good an answer as "A metal used in WoW" Rich Farmbrough, 15:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

Verdant fields
The result of the discussion was retarget to Greenfield land. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Misleading redirect which has no link to target article. Too vague to simply redirect elsewhere. No valuable page history, was a fansite/advertisement, which was quickly redirected. Taelus (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → World of Warcraft (links to redirect)
 * I'll agree w/ you there. Should be deleted.  Not a likely search term for the target. Protonk (talk) 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Zach425 talk / contribs 03:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggestion -- This could be retargetted to greenfield which is the more common way of describing a "verdant field". Greenfield is currently a rather large disambiguation page pointing to various use of the term (there are quite a few of them, most of them cities). That page could could then mention that the term verdant field is used in WoW. Although attractive on one level, I'm not sure that the <5 hits a month on the current redirect can really justify this and I won't argue for this suggestion over deletion with any force. — m a k o ๛  18:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Greenfield land as verdant fields are literally green fields. The current targeting seems too obscure as to be as helpful as this proposed alternative, and the vast majority of entries on the dab page is either specific place names starting with "Greenfield" or engineering terms which do not show the connection between them and "verdant fields" (thus returning to "greenfield land"). B.Wind (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Suggested targets seem like wordplay.  It is not a useful search term for any suggestions so far. -- ToET 12:04, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Greenfield land seems a good solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 04:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Antisocialmedia
The result of the discussion was delete all. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC) This redirects to a non-existent section of Overstock.com. The article in question has no content related to antisocialmedia.net, therefore this redirect seems useless to me. Joren (talk) 04:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I found another one, here:  → Overstock.com (links to redirect) (stats)  Same story here. Should I make another proposal for that one? Joren (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Overstock.com (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Delete and protect - after I eliminated the mention of antisocialmedia.net from the redirect itself (the targeted section has been long gone), I looked for an alternative target in articlespace. There is none. In fact, every instance of "antisocialmedia.net" was either in projectspace (and oh, what a mess it appeared to have been, based on the search findings in WP: and WT: spaces) or in userspace ("Antisocialmedia" is the name of a sockpuppet of a banned user). "Antisocialmedia" appeared only one other time in articlespace until I removed the mention of the redirect from the disambiguation page ASM. Because of the controversial history of the term in Wikipedia, I strongly urge protection upon deletion. B.Wind (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tagged this redirect and removed the mention of the nonexistent section from it as well. B.Wind (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

How 'bout → Overstock.com (links to redirect) (stats) ? -- ToET 10:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and protect both redirects, per B.Wind (the second one can be added to this discussion). --Zach425 talk / contribs 03:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all -- If you read antisocialmedia.net, you will see that the author of that site, Gary Weiss, has some long running beef with Overstock.com. This all seems to have gone down in 2007 and I couldn't easily find the content in the Overstock.com article but my guess is that this resulted in the some contentious (and now removed) criticism section based on Mr. Weiss's fight. The creator of these redirects is User:Melsaran who, it should be noted, was permanantly banned. Protection is not necessary as none of these redirects have been touched since 2007 and the user responsible has been banned. This is cleanup that was missed years ago when this fight went down. Let's just remove these and move on. — m a k o ๛  18:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: The last revision I can find that had an AntiSocialMedia.Net section was in March 2008 . I suppose it could be considered contentious, but it seems like at least some of the content may have been appropriate (provided, of course, that it's true - I didn't look into the references). —Zach425 talk / contribs 21:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete all per above arguments. Bridgeplayer (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all - besides everything else, they're of no use as the subject isn't mentioned in the target page. Robofish (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DRV/SV/ONS
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 17:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Redirect, inevitably temporary in nature, created possibly for the personal convenience of one editor and posted as a shortcut on the DRV discussion. See also WP:RFAR/DPP for another example. As far as I know, this sort of redirect creation isn't common practice. By the time this deletion discussion concludes, both redirects are likely to have become useless. Nathan  T 00:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4 (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Meh "By the time this deletion discussion concludes, both redirects are likely to have become useless." then why bother with the deletion debate. Why not just wait until the arb case and the DRV close and then ask the author to G7 it? Protonk (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Meh (per Protonk) -Stevertigo 01:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (the author, who started the WP:Shortcuts scheme to begin with, and understands their usatility is sometimes only temporary.)
 * Delete as the DRV discussion is now closed (with a relisting at WP:MfD). Keeping this would set a bad precedent of having shortcuts for individual deletion discussions and should be strongly discouraged. As for the other example, that might be worth discussing within the framework of an arbitration request as to whether it should be discouraged there as well... but that's for another forum for another day, I suppose. B.Wind (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral -- If someone wants to make sure that all of the incoming links are fixed, I've got not problem letting it go. In fact, I'd have a slight preference for that. That said, if nobody wants to do that, I don't see a huge problem with keeping it around either. I'm meh enough myself that I probably wouldn't take the time to do it myself. — m a k o ๛  18:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, and correct any incoming links. We should discourage the creation of temporary shortcuts like this one. Robofish (talk) 21:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Spoon worship
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted per criterion G10 (attack redirect). — Gavia immer (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure how this is a viable redirect; was recreated after a CSD Falcon8765 (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Glenn Beck (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Deleted as a G10 and salted (since it was previously deleted as R3. Protonk (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)