Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 18

February 18
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 18, 2011

Adenoid cyctic carcinoma



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 16:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Carcinoma (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Courtesy listing: AfD rationale given was "'Adenoid Cystic Carcinoma' article already exists... This is misspelled' by User:Homiesiman Danger (talk) 22:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
 * Retarget to Adenoid cystic carcinoma and tag as redirect from misspelling. Rossami (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I deleted this originally as a recently created implausible redirect, and I concede that it was not in fact recently created. But it remains inplausible. The fact that one editor miss-spelled the word "cystic" does nor justify its retention. I see no reason to expect other editors to attempt to find the article via the miss-spelling, and no reason to keep it. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 19:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Rossimi. Google searches for cyctic -wikipedia get ~260,000 hits, all the first 30 (I didn't look further) are misspellings of "cystic". This shows the misspelling to be far more common than just "plausible". Thryduulf (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Jewish Resistance Movement (disambiguation)



 * 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 both. The second (the most important) move is documented in the target's history. Ruslik_ Zero 16:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

These practically unused redirects are not plausible search terms for the target page, particularly since anyone bothering to type such a long search string will see either the target page's title or the redirect Jewish resistance (disambiguation). The only real function of these redirects is to document the move history, but that information already is preserved (diff, diff and diff) in the page history of the target page. Delete both. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Jewish resistance (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 *  → Jewish resistance (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Keep both because they help to document the pagemove. While one of the move sets was captured in the target's pagehistory, the pages continue to be moved even within the past 24 hours.  Redirects continue to capture the inbound links to the old titles and help readers find the correct article.  They can also help subsequent editors to reconstruct the pagemoves, especially when the moves are disputed as these seem to be .  Rossami (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you have misread the situation. The moves are not "disputed" and the page is not subject to any controversy regarding its title. The page was created at a clearly incorrect title, moved to another title by the creator 3 minutes later, moved to a shorter title sometime later by another editor and, most recently, history merged (that's the pagemove within the past 24 hours). By the way, the history merge (i.e., the most recent move) is completely unrelated to these redirects, and the relevant pagemoves are documented in the history of the target page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right - I did get confused by the history-merger. That's one of the big drawbacks of that process and why historymerge should be used only rarely. Having now spent a great deal more time sorting the history out, I am even more convinced that we need to leave these redirects alone.  They were some of the only clues available for some of the changes.  The first move by the user is, I agree, somewhat moot but neither is there any benefit to deleting it.  The project gets nothing back from deletion.  The second title, however, has continuing value as the location that the page existed for a year before being moved.  The original content was (from everything I can tell) disambiguation page content that matches the content of the current target.  So, still "keep" but for slightly different reasons.  Rossami (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neither title has any history that needs to be preserved, they are both orphaned, and considering that they both end in "disambiguation", it seems really unlikely that these redirects do now or ever will serve an actual purpose.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Pobody's Nerfect



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 16:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Expo 86 (album) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

The phrase "pobody's nerfect" is a very old joke based on misspelling "nobody's perfect". The phrase is used in a great number of situations such as bumper stickers, t-shirts, Mad magazine, etc. The current redirect is to a 2010 album that included a song of that name, but it could just as easily go to Dethklok, which also includes an example of the phrase, or to Spoonerism, which does not include it but describes its general class of word play. Cnilep (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Disambiguate . It seems like there are multiple equally valid articles that readers could be wanting to find, This is one of the situations that disaimbguation pages were designed for, and overwriting a redirect with a dab page (or other content) is something that any editor can do without the redirect being deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Like this? It feels a little odd to me, since those pages only mention the phrase in passing, if at all, but I guess it could work. Cnilep (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. From that mockup it looks like the only entry that would fit on a dab page is the song title, so disambiguation can be bypassed with a redirect to the album containing the song. I wouldn't have thought it worth creating the redirect, but now we have it there is no reason to get rid of it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If the usages were independently notable, I would agree that a disambiguation page would be a good solution. The examples listed here, however, seem more like a concordance, something which Wikipedia is not.  A redirect would be better than another contentless "article" about a random song and if the redirect serves to preempt the creation of a page about the song, that is probably useful.  I'd rather see nothing at the title, however.  This spoonerism is no different than thousands of others.  Rossami (talk) 03:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess my position is similar to Rossami's: we don't really need anything there, but if there is to be something there, a redirect to the album is probably more useful than anything else. Cnilep (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)