Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 5

November 5
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 5, 2011

Earth Angel (TV movie)



 * 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 as WP:CSD G6 by Malik Shabazz. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * → 1991 in film (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Deletion This seems to be the name of a TV movie made in 1991. Other than it may have been aired in 1991, there is no reason for a redirect to point to an unsourced list of films created in 1991. The redirect is unhelpful, and violate WP:R 3 & 4, I think. Novaseminary (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as G6. This should have been deleted as a G8 at the same time that Earth Angel (film) was deleted as an expired prod. What happened was that a bot found this dead-end redirect and made a goodwill attempt to find a solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Good point, I hadn't noticed that. I'll tag it for speedy pointing here for the explanation. Novaseminary (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Bridgeplayer just beat me to the punch! But thanks, I agree with the tagging as G6. Novaseminary (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Adaptations of a horned frog



 * 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 13:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * → Horned frog (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. Bizarre redirect to a disambiguation page, which lists different species that happen to share the name (not "adaptations") and a football team. bd2412 T 19:19, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was originally an unsourced, poorly spelled ("They will blend in with deaead leaves", "villagers wear boots ... to repeal attacks"), junior school essay. It was redirected as a "content fork" (presumably based on the title) by RHaworth back in 2009 (I'll alert him to this discussion). In many cases where a redirect nominated here was created from an article without apparent discussion there is merit in restoring the article in favour of an AfD or merge discussion; however in this case the article would stand no chance of surviving an AfD or prod so there is no point in doing that on this occasion. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am not sure why I did not give this a db-a10 tag when I saw it. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nomination. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Insomnia 2005



 * 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. DrKiernan (talk) 20:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * → Insomnia (disambiguation) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. Although the disambiguation page lists many albums, songs, and films, not a single one of them was released in 2005. bd2412 T 19:28, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Insomnia (Faithless song) where this release gets good coverage. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable alternative. Thanks! bd2412  T 22:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget per Bridgeplayer. Thryduulf (talk) 01:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though Wikipedia tries to route people to what they are looking for, it should not encourage idiotism. The search exists for this type of queries. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What about this is "idiotism"? Also remember that there are many ways in which people search and browse Wikipedia, the internal search engine is far from the universal method - not that the target is likely to be the most obvious result as it is neither an article nor section title. The redirect will also make it less likely for someone to, in good faith, create a duplicate article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Idiotism is the often found human particularity involving one in process of doing something without thinking about that first. Such redirects encourage exactly this manner of operation. If we make them stay, we'll end up with each and every combination of words being a redirect to some article where most of the words belong.
 * Redirect is a great mechanism to correct popular misspelling (capitalisation issues included), to drive people from alternative names of the event to its most widely accepted name or to the more general article. Using it to route nonsense queries is just plain wrong IMHO. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Which is fine, but this isn't a nonsense query - see the release cover. Even if it didn't explicitly say "Insomnia 2005" in big letters, remixes and new versions of old (pop, rap, r&b, etc) songs that would otherwise have the same title as the prior work are frequently suffixed with the year, meaning that searching for the 2005 mix of "Insomnia" under the title "Insomnia 2005" is very logical. The point of redirects is to help people find the articles they are looking for, and as they are so cheap we normally only delete them if they are misleading, harmful or otherwise detrimental to the encyclopaedia (such as discouraging the creation of an article we want) - none of those apply here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Either my eyes are failing or there is a bigger and bolder label "Faithless" right above "Insomnia 2005"? I understand Your point, but I do sincerely believe that routing user to the song's page is a proper task for web search engines, for Wikipedia's own search engine and for disambiguation pages, but not for the redirect pages. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Faithless" is the name of the band, not the name of the song, so it's presence on the cover is not really relevant. Web search engines work off our redirects just like our internal search does - they can only work with what we give them. Why should we expend the effort of deleting the redirect to make navigation harder for users of internal and external search utilities? Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see the issue of making something this more difficult for users. What I care more is a myriad of redirects that are absolutely not necessary. I would prefer to see some less notable content in place of those zero-worth pseudo-useful articles. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are saying, but here we are discussing this specific redirect (which I believe will be a very useful redirect once retargeted). If you think there are a "myriad of redirects that are absolutely not necessary" then please nominate them for deletion (it's worth reading WP:R and WP:R before you do though). I definitely don't understand what you mean by "zero-worth pseudo-useful articles" - redirects are not articles and serve a different purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 01:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me bring this discussion back to the nomination at issue. Insomnia 2005 clearly should not be directed to Insomnia (disambiguation) because there is at most one article in the encyclopedia to which it refers, and it is therefore not ambiguous. Whether it should exist as a redirect to that one article, or to nothing at all, is another matter. However, since there does not seem to be anything more relevant that a search could bring up, I think such a redirect is a fine solution. bd2412  T 22:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.