Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 October 26

October 26
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 26, 2012

Roller Coaster - Coaster



 * 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 - jc37 19:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * → Lagoon Amusement Park (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete: the name is completely meaningless and nothing links to it. It could potentially be retargeted to roller coaster but I doubt anyone would search using those terms and not already find the article. Themeparkgc  Talk  23:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

^I agree with the above.Xtreme2000 (talk) 09:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. bd2412  T 18:13, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep former title of Roller Coaster (Lagoon Amusement Park), which is now a redirect to Roller Coaster (Lagoon). Also, I retargeted it to "Roller Coaster (Lagoon)"Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:37, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This was the title from February - May 2010. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is how does "Roller Coaster - Coaster" relate directly to just this one roller coaster? On Wikipedia, there are five roller coasters (including the Lagoon one) named "Roller Coaster". Outside of Wikipedia there are over 150 of them. No edit history other than redirect modifications exist so I don't see a point in keeping it. Themeparkgc   Talk  22:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This would be an implausible redirect for Roller coaster (disambiguation) or any other target, and the only reason this isn't implausible for the current target it that this is a valid R from move. The reason we have Redirects from moves is to prevent link-rot. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, it's an otherwise implausible redirect, but it's a valid R from move. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * When you read it as "Roller coaster (coaster)" (which is what it is attempting to be) you can see that it's a perfectly valid . Thryduulf (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but that doesn't change that it's an implausible redirect (expect from being a redirect from a move). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Title - disambiguation" to "Title (disambiguation)" type redirects are implausible, unless you think that we ought to redirect Boo Boo - dog to Boo Boo (dog). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Your comment suggests you haven't seen my point, as my point is that it is plausible. I don't recommend creating redirects with this form, but if they have been created and it is obvious what they are attempting to do then it is by definition plausible and deletion will not bring benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Roller coaster (disambiguation). People using this term are probably looking for one of the roller coasters called "roller coaster" and they are all listed on the dab page. It also links to roller coaster, the general article about the type of ride for which this would also be a logical search term. Thryduulf (talk) 02:40, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm sorry, this just seems really implausible as a search term. --BDD (talk) 00:42, 6 November 2012 (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.

Binders full of women quote out of context



 * 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 per G6 and R3. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)


 * → Binders full of women (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

deletion: Blatant POV pushing. Victor Victoria (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2012 (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.

March 32



 * 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 - jc37 19:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * → April Fools& (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Deletion, per Articles for deletion/March 32. Too old to qualify for CSD#R3. From a quick search, there seems to be a game called, so I guess it could sensibly redirect there in the future (if/when it's notable and created). No mainspace inbound links. Considered G1 after replacing with "Segap gnitsisnoc yleritne fo tnerehocni txet ro hsirebbig htiw on lufgninaem tnetnoc ro yrotsih. Siht sedulcxe roop gnitirw, nasitrap sdeercs, enecsbo skramer, elbisualpmi seiroeht, msiladnav dna sexaoh, lanoitcif lairetam, tnerehoc non-Hsilgne lairetam, dna ylroop detalsnart lairetam. Siht sedulcxe eht xobdnas dna segap ni eht resu ecapseman. Ni trohs, fi uoy nac dnatsrednu ti, 1G seod ton ylppa." but RFD is probably the way to go. -- Trevj (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Was the contents of the deleted article about April Fools? If so, couldn't this be speedily deleted as recreation of deleted material? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to April 1. The last day of March is 31. "March 32" is "April 1". Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 21:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, should we do similarly with too? I now see from the history of  that similar articles just point to the month, e.g. ? In the grand scheme of things, none of this really matters, but its inclusion (certainly of the current redirect to April Fools' Day) doesn't present a very professional image of Wikipedia IMO. -- Trevj (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * How is an R from incorrect name unprofessional. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is. However, having a mainspace redirect which is related to April Fools' Day is what seems unprofessional to me. -- Trevj (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant if it redirected to April 1. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment There are only a few notable nonexistent dates included within Months. Some other relevant titles are:
 * , deleted 12 December 2007
 * , redirect
 * , redirect
 * , redirect
 * , redirect
 * , speedily deleted per G3 13 December 2009
 * , redirect
 * , redirect
 * , redirect
 * , nonexistent
 * , redirect
 * , nonexistent
 * , redirect
 * , redirect
 * , redirect
 * , deleted 2 August 2005
 * , redirect
 * , redirect
 * , redirect
 * , deleted once in 2005, twice in 2007


 * Some previous relevant deletion discussions are:
 * Articles for deletion/February 31
 * Articles for deletion/November 31


 * There appear to be technical reasons claimed for the "0" redirects, although I note that this 2009 RfD resulted in a redirect of to January 0.
 * -- Trevj (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment was speedily deleted in 2005 -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That was deleted because it was patent nonsense, it's deletion is irreverent to this discussion. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:04, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * And all the other 32nds listed before? -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Apologies for bringing up the many other titles, which I agree are largely irrelevant to the specific original listing here. However, their situations/histories do indicate that perhaps a wider general consensus should be sought in order to deal with such articles consistently in the future. Maybe members of WikiProject Days of the year would be well placed to advise. -- Trevj (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment, based on that good suggestion I've left a note inviting members of that WikiProject to comment here.. Thryduulf (talk) 10:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - possibly the best redirect in the encyclopaedia. Likely to have stacks of external links.  The other non-dates are worthless, though. Wily D  09:30, 9 November 2012 (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.