Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 3

September 3
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 3, 2009

京
The result of the discussion was Delete. The redirect is too generic. Ruslik_ Zero 10:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Delete; apparently 京 is the symbol for "capital" in Japanese, but the last time I checked we were not trying to build a Japanese-English dictionary here. R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Capital (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Delete -- To the extent that we are building such a dictionary, it is through the interwiki language links at the bottom of the pages, and not through redirects. — m a k o ๛  15:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have no strong feelings either way, but I think that we do allow some foreign-language redirects. If you really feel that this is inappropriate, there are quite a few similar cases to take care of. Jafeluv (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost all of the random selection of links I clicked on in that category were redirects to Japanese cities, stations, or terms. That makes a lot more sense that a random translation of a word. — m a k o ๛  20:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. It makes perfect sense that 北京 redirects to Beijing, but generic foreign-language redirects do not belong. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 23:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hotelschool Den Haag
The result of the discussion was retargeted. 69.210.136.149 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an incorrect redirect as Hotelschool Den Haag is not the same university as the one that's being directed to. It should be directed to Hotelschool The Hague. Hotelschool Den Haag is the Dutch equivalent (and official name) of the latter. Ankabout (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → The Hague University of Applied Science (links to redirect) (stats)
 * I've retargeted it. In the future, you should feel free to be bold and make the change yourself; one may, to be sure, change a redirect without coming to RfD.  69.210.136.149 (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

MAIM
The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC) I'm surprised that this redirect wasn't deleted a long time ago in accordance with WP:CSD because I'm sure everybody knows how to spell MAME. The page was originally created in 2006 as a "find-and-replace" job of the target article by the notorious User:Gingerfield rocks, but was speedily deleted as a blatant hoax (like most of the other stuff he posted on here). It was later restored as a redirect by the user who originally deleted the article, Mike Rosoft, and has remained that way to this day. 86.167.101.151 (talk) 10:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → MAME (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Weak Keep Keep as retargetted -- You're right that MAIM has no business pointing to MAME. I've boldy retargetted this to mutilation which is where maim redirects to now. That seems like a reasonable resting place and, with that change done, I don't object to keeping it around. — m a k o ๛  15:20, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as retargeted as a capitalization variant. It's easy to forget about something called "CAPS LOCK". B.Wind (talk) 18:13, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Extrasolar
The result of the discussion was made into a disambiguation page. I think that solves the concerns raised here. Killiondude (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC) Delete This is an adjective, and it means anything outside the Solar System. There are many things outside the Solar System that are not planets, many of the incoming links use the sense "outside the Solar System" and not referring to planets. So this redirect makes no sense. If turned into an article, it'd be a dicdef. 76.66.200.21 (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Extrasolar planet (links to redirect) (stats)


 * Support Deletion. Even though the term "extrasolar" is almost always used to describe planets in other star systems, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
 * &mdash;  .`^) Paine Ellsworthdiss`cuss (^`.   06:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article was created today by an IP user as a one sentence stub before it was eventually converted to a redirect, so there should be no incoming link concerns. Also, "extrasolar" in the search tool will yield Extrasolar planet as its first result.  With those concerns removed, this nomination can be decided on the merits of how commonly this adjective is used as a noun to specifically refer to Extrasolar planet, and there I defer to the experts. -- ToET 12:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete -- So I'm not an expert but I don't think that extrasolar is frequently used as a noun to specifically refer to extrasolar planet. At least, I've never heard it. A search result would probably be a better place for a person searching for the term to land. If someone with more/better information comes forward, I'll gladly defer. — m a k o ๛  15:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Note. Because we have separate articles named Extrasolar planet and Extrasolar moon, I have boldly dabified the redirect. Should someone decide that Extrasolar object is a more appropriate name for this, it can be moved... and Extrasolar would then be a valid redirect to a dab page.B.Wind (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Endorse dabification (although I'm pretty sure that's not a word). It's a plausible search term, and there is no obvious target. Jafeluv (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support dabification as well, although I don't feel so strongly about it that I would argue for it loudly. — m a k o ๛  20:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Vampires abilities
The result of the discussion was Delete. Killiondude (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC) If this redirect were located at Vampire's abilities or Vampires' abilities, it would be OK. Or if this were a redirect to one of the aforementioned two pages (if the articles existed), it would be OK. But the combination of a misspelling and a specific-to-general redirect makes this an unlikely search target. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC) King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Vampire (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Comment I put the redirect to the general article because it looked like the attributes mentioned in this article were mentioned in the main article - albeit not in one specific section (hence the redirect to the Vampire article rather than to one of the sections). However, I am quite happy for it to be put back to how it was and then moved to Vampires' abilities (with a redirect to there from Vampire's abilities, and possibly also Vampiric abilities).
 * A search for Vampires' abilities has the following results: 1123 results including Vampire literature; Morbius, the Living Vampire; Vampires (Anita Blake mythology); Vampire - while a search for Vampire's abilities has the following results: 1123 results including Morbius, the Living Vampire; Vampire - although none of those has an abilities section per se. --  Phantom Steve  ( Contact Me, My Contribs ) 07:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. This was created today as one child's run-on sentence describing what he or she thought about vampires. Most likely, the article would have been speedily deleted had it not been converted into a redirect.  There is no reason now to retain that redirect, grammatically incorrect as it is. -- ToET 10:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete -- As per ToE with the additional note that I don't any huge harm coming from this one. — m a k o ๛  15:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlikely search term, although as said above it would make sense if there was a separate article on vampires' abilities. Jafeluv (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)