Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 June 30

June 30
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 30, 2010

Neo-humanism



 * 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 no consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * → Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Until there is a real article, there shouldn't be a redirect to some particular adherent of a particular philosophy. This guy is not synonymous with neo-humanism. Greg Bard 01:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. There is a real article, here. What happened is that Neo-humanism was merged into Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, and redirected, on 14 February 2008. Deleting the redirect is, presently, simply not an option because of GFDL implications. Though there are alternative ways of preserving the history, for example a history merge, leaving things be seems the simplest solution particularly since this seems a perfectly reasonable redirect. If that is not acceptable, then the way forward is to split the article again, preferably after talk page discussion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm just going to redirect it to humanism.Greg Bard 02:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Now it is here, I think you should await the result of the discussion. Humanism looks a much inferior target because it doesn't address Neo-humanism, my proposed retarget deals directly with the philosophy which, it is claimed, Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar introduced and since this article was merged into Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - the fate of Neohumanism should also follow the result of this discussion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment the proper way to organize these things is to have any content about "neo-humanism" inserted into a section of that name within the humanism article. A redirect for an ism, shouldn't redirect to a particular person, in general --as a matter of format for WP. Greg Bard 23:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I lack the topic knowledge to comment on that. However, since you consider that the Neo-humanism material has been merged to the wrong page then I suggest that you start a discussion at Talk:Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar in order to reach consensus. A link to the discussion at Talk:Humanism might bring in more expert editors. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 17:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for the time being, as that's where the content was merged to; if it's moved to another page, or information about 'neo-humanism' is added to a separate article, then this redirect can be changed or turned into a disambiguation page as appropriate. Robofish (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

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

Wikipedia:DELSORT/ANIME



 * 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 keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * → WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delsort "shortcut" which really isn't much of a shortcut and isn't used. The current shortcuts of WP:ANIME/D and WP:MANGA/D work much better and this one isn't even on the shortcut list. Tavix | Talk  16:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have alerted Dinoguy1000 who created these redirects. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - does not meet any of the criteria at WP:RFD. Though it's not linked, it's obviously not possible to say whether it is used by editors. Harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:HARMLESS is not a valid reason to keep.   Snotty Wong   soliloquize 19:40, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is for redirects; that guideline applies to articles, only. See, also, the note to that guideline. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline is excepted from Miscellany for deletion discussions, which are often on userspace content. Redirects are not discussed in MfD's.  Just because a redirect is harmless doesn't mean it's not useless.    Snotty Wong   comment 22:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - ordinarily, I'd probably say "I don't care", but in this case, these redirects are a direct reflection of the name of the page they redirect to, which arguably makes them more common-sense redirects than the more widely-used WP:ANIME/ redirects - this is the reason I created them in the first place, in fact. Furthermore, these redirects are in the project space, redirecting to project-space pages, meaning they don't necessarily have to meet the same standards as redirects in article space (and as Bridgeplayer points out, they don't meet any of the delete criteria anyways). 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirects are cheep and this one isn't doing any harm. The WP:HARMLESS argument is only invalid for articles, not for other miscellaneous pages. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment What person is going to type in DELSORT/MANGA or DELSORT/ANIME in the search box? This seems pretty useless to me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If the naming scheme is expanded to include the other deletion sorting pages (WP:DELSORT/JAPAN, WP:DELSORT/COMICS, WP:DELSORT/LISTS, WP:DELSORT/PEOPLE, etc.), then it would be very useful. I see a lot of potential in these types of redirects. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally can't believe no one's created them before. And as I said above, "DELSORT/MANGA" and "DELSORT/ANIME" draw directly from the page title - it is entirely likely that someone might know the approximate name for the animanga delsort page, but not know the general naming scheme for other animanga project pages (which it deviates from, being a WP:DELSORT subpage and all). In such a case, especially if they already know the WP:DELSORT shortcut, it's not such a stretch they would extend it like so. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Nine inch cock



 * 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 delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * → Human penis size (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Implausible search term, delete per WP:R, item 8. It's highly unlikely that someone is going to genuinely use this search term to find the Human penis size article. Also, there are few or no links to this redirect. Snotty Wong  confabulate 16:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - this redirect was created by a banned user. Any number could replace 'nine' and I wouldn't argue against criterion 8 applying. Relatively few hits. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete for being unnecessary, unhelpful, and a bad encouragement to create similar redirects.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 02:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Massive cock



 * 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 delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * → Human penis size (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Implausible search term, delete per WP:R, item 8. It's highly unlikely that someone is going to genuinely use this search term to find the Human penis size article. Also, there are few or no links to this redirect. Snotty Wong  confabulate 16:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak delete for being unnecessary, unhelpful, and a bad encouragement to create similar redirects.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 03:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Big cock



 * 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 converted to a disambiguation page by User:Bridgeplayer; no longer a redirect. NAC. —   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 02:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * → Human penis size (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Implausible search term, delete per WP:R, item 8. It's highly unlikely that someone is going to genuinely use this search term to find the Human penis size article. Also, there are few or no links to this redirect. Snotty Wong  confabulate 16:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - point 8 applies to a "novel or very obscure synonym". I don't find this term either novel nor particularly obscure. Plenty of hits, here, so sufficient potential for someone wishing to look this up. This redirect gets around 1,000 hits a month so it is plainly used as a search term. There is a possible disambiguation conversion that I wouldn't argue against. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete could be talking about horse penises in those "special" porn videos. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - with respect, it could also be talking about a large rooster, but the high probability is that the searches were aimed at the target. Very many redirects have remote alternative meanings, but we can't cover all bases and when, as here, there is a target that is highly likely to be the prime use, then that is sufficient. Having said that, there is a conceivable disamb page here, and that can be created, at any time, if alternative uses are considered sufficiently likely. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is arguing that if you type "Big cock" into google, you're not going to get a billion results. That really has no relevance to this discussion.  The question is whether or not "Big cock" is a valid redirect to Human penis size.  The adjectives "big", "huge", "massive", "gigantic", "9-inch", etc. combined with various slang terms for penis are exactly what I would consider novel and obscure.  If someone was truly looking for Human penis size, they would most likely search for something like "penis size" or "size of penis" or "penis size stats", not "big cock".    Snotty Wong   confess 22:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it looks as though I am being followed down this page with pro-forma comments, I guess that a pro-forma reply is reasonable. In my view many of these terms, but not all as distinguished in my comments, are entirely plausible search terms, particularly as borne out by the stats. What may or may not be the most likely search term actually doesn't matter. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if you find these search terms plausible, we should create the following similar redirects:


 * Snotty Wong  verbalize 22:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Converted to disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm ok with that in this case.   Snotty Wong   converse 17:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Avatar (2010 film)



 * 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 retarget to The Last Airbender. There is no need to come here with a retarget unless it gets reverted; just boldly action it as an editorial action. The creator is currently serving a block and will not be able to comment, nor revert it, within the timescale of this discussion.  NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * → Avatar (2009 film) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Re-target to The Last Airbender. The current target of this redirect leads to the Avatar film that came out last year; however, The Last Airbender is based on the Avatar series of the same name, and I think it makes more sense for Avatar (2010 film) to point to an "Avatar film that releases in 2010. Mauler90  talk 06:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination.  Please do not modify it.