Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 11

March 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 11, 2010

Bill Clarey



 * 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. After more than two weeks since the nomination and 9 days after a relisting (which generated no further comments) sufficient time has elapsed to determine whether the situation has changed and coverage of Bill Clarey has been added to one of the possible target articles. The answer is that he continues not to be covered in any of the articles listed below, and so 147.70.252.54's "conditional delete" evaluates to "delete", and DGG's "keep [...] assuming the suggested article or section is rewritten" does not apply. With no remaining reasons to keep, deletion is the only possible outcome here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * → The Daily Show (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete. Five years ago (or so) an intern at The Daily Show committed suicide. It was a classic example of sub-BLP1E, but no longer really relevant to the article. No mention of this person is made within The Daily Show article on Wikipedia because the story, in the grand scheme of things, amounts to trivial content. JBsupreme ( talk ) 07:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conditional delete - had List of The Daily Show recurring segments actually mentioned that Clarey was the staff writer who created "Your Moment of Zen" for the Kilgore version of The Daily Show, a retargeting to the section would have been the recommended action here. Cleary's name is nowhere to be found, either in The Daily Show or List of The Daily Show recurring segments. There is no need to keep the redirect simply because production of the show was halted after Clarey's suicide, but if the segment (which had enough independent coverage to qualify for a standalone article should someone be interested in writing one) had its originator mentioned somewhere there would be no need to bring this up as a reason to keep and/or retarget the redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep and retarget, assuming the suggested article or section is rewritten.    DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It isn't, probably because it cast WP:UNDUE weight within the article as a non notable entity.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 07:17, 9 March 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.'

Kinman Doriana



 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * → List of Star Wars characters (links to redirect • [ history] • )

There's nothing about this character in the List of Star Wars characters, and I don't see a need for him in it. He's a pretty minor character in the Star Wars universe and only appears in few works. The Evil IP address (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Conditional delete - if Palpatine had mentioned this character even nominally, I'd be recommending a retarget of this redirect to there (and I think that a brief mention of Kinman Doriana there would actually help the article a little), but it is not the case. This minor character is not mentioned in the current target; the original article was deleted in 2008 via AfD. If the character cannot be included in the Palpatine article, then deletion is the only viable option here. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - insignificant character not covered in redirect target; no other reasonable target presents itself. --EEMIV (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not mentioned in target, misleading, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  10:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Template:USSFD2Pods



 * 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 Speedy deleted per WP:CSD by User:Athaenara. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 05:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:USSFD2 (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This is the sub-template that should be deleted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Unclear. This appears to be a redirect to a template that was nominated for deletion. The AfD was procedurally closed (if the target template warranted deletion, it should have gone to Templates for discussion instead). On what basis is nom recommending deletion of this redirect? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Walter Görlitz, the creator of the template, posted the following on its talk page: "I would prefer to have this be a section under the other template and only have one template, but I'm not sure how how to make that happen. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)" to which another user replied: "Well there's no opposition, and I am in favor as well. So I'll make it happen --Dylant2011(talk) 07:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.124.117.22 (talk)" The issues with the sub-template information for the main template have been resolved, so I deleted it in accordance with his wishes (log).  – Athaenara  ✉  23:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Filibuster in United States



 * 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 speedy keep as nomination was withdrawn and no one registered a recommendation for deletion or retargeting (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * → Filibuster (United States Senate) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete redirect - Article was split from Filibuster as Filibuster in United States, then renamed to Filibuster in the United States, then later renamed again. The final name has not yet been determined, but this redirect is not useful and has no useful history. -- JPMcGrath (talk) 16:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep for now. It seems that the fate of the nominated redirect hinges on whether Filibuster in the United States is to be kept as a redirect or not. If it is, "Filibuster in United States" is a foreseeable search term as the omission of definite articles occur with great regularity in searches. On the other hand, should there be a deletion of "Filibuster in the United States", then obviously the nominated redirect should join it in oblivion. IMO the key is not this redirect but the other one mentioned here - what are the intentions regarding "Filibuster in the United States"? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rrius has made a compelling case to keep Filibuster (United States Senate) within its current scope of the Senate. A different article may emerge later on, Filibuster in the United States, that covers the practice in other US legislatures and bodies. —ShinyG 23:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for now until it is clear what the final location for the article involved is. If the status quo remains, then I'd say this title is a plausible search term per 174.70.242.54 above. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; retarget later. If and when Filibuster in the United States fleshes out into a full article, then this redirect can be retargeted there. For now, the only substantial coverage of U.S. filibusters is focused on the practice within the Senate (and does not include other legislatures).   As per 174.70.242.54 above, this is an appropriate redirect for the time being. —ShinyG 23:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, retarget later if Filibuster in the United States is developed as a separate article. Right now, it's still a plausible search term. –Grondemar 05:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep; Can I withdraw the nomination for deletion?  I considered it cruft left over from renaming, but if others think it is useful, then I say keep it, -- JPMcGrath (talk) 01:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)