Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 24

The result of the debate was delete. mattbr 09:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

As alternate term, very improbable, and perhaps even offensive. Bsherr (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy-delete. The edit summary in combination with the author's contribution history make it clear that this was vandalism. Rossami (talk) 03:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as vandalism. Terraxos (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. David Pro 21:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. mattbr 09:32, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Utterly implausible typo (those are not even double quote marks, but single quotes). However, doesn't meet CSD R3 as it is not a recent redirect, so here I am proposing it for deletion. Maralia (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, pending some other explanation. If I had to guess, they were going for "italics," but I don't think that's common practice. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Kill Elassint 06:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. The redirect is inaccurate and it also an unlikely search term. Folks who know about the potential for the team to have been moved to Kansas City would already know the team's proper name and would use that. -- JLaTondre 18:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined. The Nashville Predators have never been located in Kansas City, have never been in discussions with anyone about moving to KC and recently just signed a lease to keep them in Nashville for the next few years. Since the team has never existed, there is no purpose to this redirect. Smashville^BONK! 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the article, there was a serious attempt to move the team to Kansas City. The redirect is harmless. Toohool (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was never any attempt to move the team to Kansas City. There was never any attempt to move the team period. The current owner refused to sell to the owner who wanted to move to Canada. --Smashville^BONK! 17:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There were negotiations to sell the team to someone who would have moved it to Kansas City... it's right there in the article. The phrase "Kansas City Predators" gets 77 ghits. What's the harm in the redirect? Toohool (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any sources that aren't blogs though, Delete per Smashville This is a Secret ^account 20:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: [1] [2] [3]. Toohool (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Still delete, unlikely search term This is a Secret ^account 03:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Should we start creating redirects such as Toronto Bills (see Buffalo Bills)? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 23:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. --- RockMFR 08:40, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

I don't quite see why this phrase redirects to Wikipedia. The only thought I have is that this possibly was once a slogan of Wikipedia but I can't find support for that anywhere. It is very unlikely that anyone would ever search for this phrase and that they would hoping for the end result to be related to Wikipedia. Metros (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete not a known slogan of Wikipedia or a common term for it; POV. Someone could also check the other redirects to Wikipedia, some of which are at least as dubious (or funny): BNkNnNdR, Wiki wiki wild, Jeremy Rosenfield, Unemployed PhD Deathmatch and Too much free time. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like this was created by User:The Patroller for use in his sig, which is rather inappropriate. In any event, he's been inactive for over a year. Toohool (talk) 03:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur with Toohool's analysis. Delete. Rossami (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Toohool. I was wondering if maybe I just hadn't heard of this reference, but it's not mentioned at all in the target article, either. Redirects without context are of little apparent utility, I think. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, this has no use! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehelpfulone (talk • contribs) 16:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - No utility. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: While I agree that this should be deleted, it is explicitly not a speedy-deletion candidate. Being "useless" is a matter of personal opinion and judgement. Each of us uses the encyclopedia differently. What may appear useless to you may be very useful to me. It requires discussion to sort those out. Please stop attempting to bend the speedy-deletion criteria beyond their allowed bounds. Rossami (talk)

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