Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 8

November 8
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 8, 2010

Predator Plane



 * 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 (Kept). -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → General Atomics Q-1 Predator (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Proposed deletion of implausible redirect. "Predator Plane" is a rather...odd way of describing the aircraft, both inaccurate and "slang-y". Now, that in itself wouldn't be enough to make me nominate it; after all, redirects don't take up much space, and "Predator plane" would be vaguely plausible (and also doesn't exist; "Predator aircraft" would be much more plausible - and does not have a redirect either). However, the capitalised "P" in "Plane" pushes it over the edge, IMHO, as not just uncommon (a Google for "Predator Plane" turns up only 1,000 total hits!) but misspelled/miscapitalised to boot; in order to appear as a wikilink in an article, it would have to be piped (like so: Predator plane) in order to avoid being ungrammatical. - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 16:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - redirects are simply search aids and do not have to be technically accurate. This is a plausible enough search term and it gets around 100 hits per month. Long-standing redirect whose deletion might break links in external sites for no benefit. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and create Predator plane instead, as at least this will avoid the need for piping when the redirect is linked. The hits counter does not consider differences in capitalization and the search box will also take care of this. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Fuck handles



 * 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 by User:Nikkimaria under criterion R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect. Non-admin closure.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → Clear heels ">(links to redirect • [ history] • )

This is a simple redirect with no content. There is no mention of "fuck handles" in the Clear heels article, nor have I found a source to suggest this name other than the Urban Dictionary. (There are however, several other definitions of "fuck handles"). In my view it should be deleted. Fainites barley scribs 16:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - I can't source a connection between the terms so it would be confusing to a searcher. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

British Colonialism and the BBC



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 13:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → Pictures of Starving Children Sell Records (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I'm moving this over from Articles for deletion/British Colonialism and the BBC. User:GeorgeLouis recommended deletion based on the following rationale: "This redirect has nothing to do with either British colonialism or the BBC." He has a point. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. He does indeed. JohnCD (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Rename British Colonialism and the BBC (song) and delete the resulting redirect. It is normal to redirect nn songs to their album but the existing title is certainly confusing. My suggestion enables the song to be found without being misleading. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The redirect is from a song title to an article about the album, so it is a plausible search term. While adding "(song)" would eliminate any possibility for confusion, it also would make the title less likely to be searched. If there is no consensus to keep, then delete and create British Colonialism and the BBC (song) per Bridgeplayer (no need, I think, to preserve the confusing page history by renaming). -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep – Why does it matter if someone is confused? All one has to do is read the article and see that it's the name of a song. I doubt anyone who wasn't looking for the song would be looking up "British Colonialism and the BBC"; it's not exactly a common school report subject or anything.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  08:04, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The Kane Chronicles



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → The Kane Chronicles (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I feel as though this redirect should be removed for a variety of reasons. The books is still 2 years from being published, and even a title hasn't been announced yet. Once again, the second book doesn't even have a name and this redirect is for the third book, the third book isn't even mentioned in the main article The Kane Chronicles. On that note, this redirect is for the 3rd book which is way off into the horizon. So in short, I believe that this redirect should be deleted. Also the name of the page is not useful as a search term, need I say more? Jab843 (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete as confusing. 18:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgeplayer (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL - with no title, it's a WP:HAMMER situation, really. JohnCD (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, if there's not such book published yet. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 09:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Black Rock Desert region-northwest Nevada & California border



 * 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 Delete, A3 by User:Mike Selinker. -- Lenticel  ( talk ) 05:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → Category:Black Rock region (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Implausible cross-namespace redirect. No incoming links, no significant page history, and not useful as a search term. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - a redirect to a category can be helpful but not here where this is a most unlikely search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Black Rock Desert D O N D E''' groovily   Talk to me  14:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who started typing the redirect title would see Black Rock Desert in the search drop-down list and could simply select the article directly, so the redirect title is unlikely to be a plausible search term for "Black Rock Desert", no? -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Lake Mead-Lower Colorado River Watershed-(northwest-section) on the Nevada-Utah border



 * 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 Delete, A3 by User:Mike Selinker.  Lenticel  ( talk ) 05:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → Lake Mead (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete. Not a plausible search term, especially when considering all of the possible dash and spacing variants. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - pointless redirect; recently created so deletion causes no problem. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete- Completely unnecessary page that brings nothing new --Mblumber (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)