Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 7

September 7
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 7, 2009

Vonnegut
The result of the discussion was keep as redirect to Kurt Vonnegut. Killiondude (talk) 04:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Retargeting recommended. This was originally a redirect to Kurt Vonnegut, but when the disambiguation page Vonnegut (disambiguation) was posted at WP:AfD, it was noted that there were four standalone articles for four different members of the Vonnegut family. Clearly "Vonnegut" does not identify only the author, but the people who have the same last name. Another editor has a contrary opinion (that of Kurt Vonnegut being the primary use of "Vonnegut") and has reverted attempts to retarget the redirect to the dab page. Rather than have an edit war, I'm bringing this here for community discussion and consensus. I do not object to the idea of moving the dab page to this name, but this option would be best discussed at the AfD for Vonnegut (disambiguation). B.Wind (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Kurt Vonnegut (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Keep as redirect to the author. Ask any literate English speaker in the world what "Vonnegut" refers to. There are two likely responses: 1) the author; 2) no clue. Not one of the other persons would have a Wikipedia article were it not for the author. older ≠ wiser 17:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a redirect to Kurt -- This is what almost everyone hitting that link will want. The other articles should all be linked from that page but a more visible disambiguation link at the top of the Kurt Vonnegut article might be appropriate. I'd be inclined to leave a message on the KV talk page and let more informed editors work that out. — m a k o ๛  21:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Kurt Vonnegut He's far and away what people will be searching for. Add a hatnote for the disam page on his page. --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect to Kurt Vonnegut. He is far more notable than his other family members, and his name would be the only one of them to spring to the minds of most people.  Now that a hatnote has been added to Kurt's article, everything seems to be in order.  --Zach425 talk / contribs 01:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and move Vonnegut (disambiguation) to this name. The arguments made above clearly imply that the family is not notable enough to stand on its own. That would have merit only if none of the other family members meet WP:BIO's notability bar (and if that's the case, all family members would - and should - have redirects to Kurt Vonnegut instead of having standalone articles). Yet the other three members all meet the WP:BIO notability bar and thus "Vonnegut" clearly pertains to the family. Those who click it should be able to choose which family member they wish to research instead of having one foisted on them should they be interested in someone other than the author whose last name is Vonnegut. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because other people named Vonnegut pass the WP:BIO bar does not mean that they are all equally well known and that the redirect for Vonnegut should point to the disambiguation page. This is particularly the case when you have one overwhelmingly more well-known person with a particular last name. For example, despite the fact that there are quite a few notable people named Obama, Obama correctly redirects to the page on Barack (as, I might add, does the page on Barack). Template:Redirect4 was designed to help us with this. We should use it here. — m a k o ๛  19:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think Kurt Vonnegut is the primary topic for this search term. and as such the disambiguation page should stay at Vonnegut (disambiguation). Jafeluv (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Dzhein Feizer
The result of the discussion was speedy keep. Magioladitis (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Name not discussed in target Magioladitis (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Jane Feather (links to redirect) (stats)


 * Keep. According to several online biographies, Dzhein Feizer is her real (birth) name. I have inserted this into the target article. B.Wind (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep now that the target is updated -- Thanks for figuring this out and updating the article B.Wind. The redirect now seems appropriate. — m a k o ๛  21:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Now makes sense. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Fami.ly
The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC) delete – This is an unneeded and unhelpful redirect that was added by as part of a campaign to promote an internet domain. Most of the other spam was removed long ago; this is one remaining bit. ✤ JonHarder talk 14:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Domain hack (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Delete -- Seems like this probably qualifies to be speedied actually. — m a k o ๛  21:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Musicals by X
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Musical theatre
 * → Musical theatre
 * → Musical theatre
 * → Musical theatre
 * → Musical theatre
 * → Musical theatre

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete all - these would be appropriate names for categories (if the prefix "Category:" were added, that is), but poor names for redirects as no one would be looking for articles by those names, let alone anything specified in the article Musical theatre. These are most highly unlikely search items for articlespace. B.Wind (talk) 17:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all as per nominator and as per comments by B.Wind above. Keep up the good work Jafeluv. — m a k o ๛  21:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ME:TV
The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Unlikely redirect to TV scheduling concept which should be deleted; the casing of the target title does not include a colon, and the already existing Me TV dab suffices fine for the majority of inquiries.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 03:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → MeTV (links to redirect) (stats)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as a confusing redirect as it implies the existence of a "ME:" subspace of Wikipedia. B.Wind (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I've retargeted this to Me TV, as ME:TV is one of the entries listed there (a former show on the Nickelodeon network). Unless the "ME:" explicitly violates Wikipedia policy, this redirect is appropriate and should be kept.  --Zach425 talk / contribs 04:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I tend to agree with reasoning by Zach425 above. — m a k o ๛  21:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - This user has created several hoax pages about TV programming. That user hasn't edited Me TV but it makes me suspicious. Clubmarx (talk) 05:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The redirect to Me TV seems legit, as the title is included on the dab page. Jafeluv (talk) 09:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)