Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 September 10

The nominated redirect was Deleted. Not enough usage. -- JLaTondre 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical, POV neo/protologism redirect. I'm sure if it exists there is something better to redirect to. Also, can you say Google Bomb? :) RN 18:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nonsensical Nfitz 02:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, polemical attack. Herostratus 04:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inappropriate POV commentary. -/- Warren 23:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not used. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 23:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was Kept with return to original target (Criticism of Microsoft). Microsoft (like any large company) has lots of detractors. It is conceivable that someone could search on this term if they are doing research of that phenomenon. They should be directed to where they can find information. -- JLaTondre 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is unlikely there was ever a clearer case of a POV redirect :). RN 18:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - hang on. Part of the problem here, is that the redirect should be to the article Criticism of Microsoft. Analysis of Microsoft is just a redirect itself. Given you changed the redirect from Criticism of Microsoft to Analysis of Microsoft shortly before issuing the RFD, then this doesn't quite seem like cricket to me. Besides Anti-Microsoft doesn't seem to be a poor redirect for Criticism of Microsoft. Nfitz 02:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that is a long story. Basically, the criticism part was never supposed to be all negative (that article has had quite a few names before...); this was just what it happened to be. It is just only percieved that way sometimes, which is why I moved it. The reason Analysis was a redirect at that moment was because it was reverted through some process thing I missed; which has been corrected so thanks for letting me know :). RN 02:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Pavel Vozenilek 15:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inappropriate POV commentary. -/- Warren 23:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - this RFD violates several of the reasons not to remove redirects listed in Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?. These are:

The major reasons why deletion of redirects is harmful are:

•a redirect may contain nontrivial edit history;

•if a redirect is reasonably old, then it is quite possible that its deletion will break links in old, historical, versions of some other articles — such an event is very difficult to envision and even detect.

Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.

2. They would aid accidental linking and make the creation of duplicate articles less likely, whether by redirecting a plural to a singular, by redirecting a frequent misspelling to a correct spelling, by redirecting a misnomer to a correct term, by redirecting to a synonym, etc.

3. They aid searches on certain terms.

4. You risk breaking external or internal links by deleting the redirect.

5. Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do. You might not find it useful — this is not because the other person is a liar, but because you browse Wikipedia in different ways.

I'll emphasize the Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones. Nfitz 19:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • " really harmful redirects" which I would consider this. I wonder if it would be OK if I went and made "Pro-Microsoft" and "I Love Microsoft" to redirect to this page? :) (and most of the points there are questionable, which I will probably address eventually...) RN 19:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Speedy Keep" is inappropriate if there is a delete "vote", unless the removal would violate a guideline. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realise that. My point above is that it violates several guidelines! Nfitz 20:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nope. The removal doesn't violate a single one of those guidelines. However, thinking about it, changed my "vote" to redirect to Microsoft, and protect. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why? RN 20:25, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given that this redirect is over 2 years old, seems quite harmless, and in my mind, violates the "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones." guideline ... why don't you think that this is violated? Though I'd be quite happy with a redirect to either article. Nfitz 20:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seems quite harmless", No, it is quite harmful. Regardless, if there was a Pro-Microsoft redirect I guess that would make some sense. Still seems rediculous... RN 20:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is "anti-Microsoft" any more harmful than redirect Anti-american or Anti-tax?Nfitz 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because those point to "anti-" articles. This one does not. RN 21:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was redirected to Criticism of Microsoft a couple of days ago until you redirected it. Nfitz 22:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, and as my above comment said, Criticism of Microsoft was not supposed to be an Anti-Microsoft article. Recursive. RN 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just before starting this RFD, RN had moved Criticism of Microsoft to Anti-Microsoft. However others appear to have moved it back, because of how much it changed the scope of the article - which seems to make this whole RFD null and void - and I reiterate that this is another reason why this is a speedy keep. Nfitz 00:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's a reason for a speedy delete as housekeeping. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Anti-Microsoft has been directed at Criticism of Microsoft, Criticisms of Microsoft, and Common criticisms of Microsoft for two years until 30 minutes before this RFD was issues. RN Changed renamed Criticism of Microsoft to Analysis of Microsoft, and then 30-minutes later issued this RFD. How does does that make this a speedy delete, particularly when deleting this redirect violates so many principles in Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?? Nfitz 15:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was Deleted. Not enough usage. -- JLaTondre 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm really not sure about this one - I can't find any real info for it. I'm guess it is some kind of insult??? but the urban dictionary [1] defines it as "the opposite to Microsoft." Either way it seems really nonsensical. There are actually a couple other companies with this name that are legitamate, and it was created by the same anon who also created Microhard, so it looks like a google bomb attempt. RN 21:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nonsensical Nfitz 02:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (May be attributed to Piers Anthony, for what it's worth.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - used only as antonym, not as a slang name. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inappropriate POV commentary. -/- Warren 23:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was Deleted. Not enough usage. -- JLaTondre 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a company with this name, Microhard Systems Inc., that may be notable enough for an article here. However, Microsoft isn't even in the first 10 googles for this word; Created by the same ip as "Macrohard" it is a redirect that just doesn't make any sense. RN 21:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - nonsensical Nfitz 02:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not even related. AdrianTM 05:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 15:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete - misleading. CP/M ^comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Inappropriate POV commentary. -/- Warren 23:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was Kept. As merge, history needs to be maintained for GFDL compliance. It's also a likly search term. -- JLaTondre 13:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redirect article has been merged into target article Rdmoore6 01:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not understanding the issue here. Looks fine to me. Perhaps I'm missing something? Nfitz 02:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until further explanation provided. Nfitz 20:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.