Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 6

May 6
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 6, 2010

Over 9,000



 * 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 Deleted for the 9001st time ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 23:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * → Internet meme (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Over 9000 has been repeatedly deleted and the article Internet meme doesn't mention it. Svick (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - Articles for deletion/Over 9000 is relevant. Not mentioned in the target article and I see no reason to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 2.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 02:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Clement Richard, 1st Earl Attlee Attlee



 * 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 ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 00:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * → Clement Attlee (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Propose deletion. Seems to be a rare example of a genuinely useless redirect. and its original author (Worldtraveller) has left so I can't ask them about their rationale for its creation. It meets criterion 4 to delete in that it makes no sense (that is, there is nothing called that nor can it ever imaginably be of any use to anyone) and it fails criteria to keep 1-6 unless someone says they find it useful (!). It has a very slight negative effect in that it shows up in searches and is potentially confusing. I know we are quite keepist about redirects but really I can't see any reason to keep this one and can see a reason, albeit mild, to lose it. Thanks DBaK (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - appears to have been a typographical error that has been in existence for five years - had it been created much more recently, it would have been eligible for speedy deletion under CSD R3. B.Wind (talk) 13:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Possibly the result of a typographical or cut-and-paste error, or just a misunderstanding in how his name and title are formed.  Gets no appreciable traffic, is misleading and not useful.   Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 03:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Brendan Kamps



 * 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 ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 00:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * → Eastbound &amp; Down (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Redirect created by what appears to be a vandal only account. Can't find anything that suggests that this person actually has anything to do with this show. Onorem♠Dil 00:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - completely unsupported by reliable sources. Looking at the the histories of both the redirect and the contributor has convinced me that this addition to the cast in the target article (since reverted) was not exactly in good faith. French Wikipedia still shows the "damage" caused by the addition of this "actor" into the corresponding article. B.Wind (talk) 03:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - this person has a facebook page but little else. Looks like self-promotion, to me. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, agreed with the above that this is a fake/promotional redirect at best.  Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 02:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete &mdash; Not mentioned in target. Décembër21st2012Freâk   Talk at 01:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)