Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 3

Originally intended to serve as a redirect for Low Yat Plaza, but contains misspellings of "Low". Speedy candidate. Two hundred percent (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as R1 (redirect to a nonexistent page). I don't think it's a plausible misspelling of the target mentioned by the nominator above, either. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search string which was redirected to closest subject after someone created electioneering article about a non-notable group. Ohconfucius (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as plausible search term based on the title of the official website. The group has been discussed in several sources, albeit not exactly by this name, but it's not that unreasonable that someone might search for this. –Pomte 10:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completing nomination for Cmjc80 (talk · contribs). No opinion. MER-C 04:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Original target was Cloverfield. Considering its promotion and 1-18-08.com, it's plausible as a search term. –Pomte 10:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget back to Cloverfield, or just delete. - Koweja (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The connection to Cloverfield is solely one of advertising (and is incorrect since the connection is actually www.1-18-08.com). A marketing gimmick is not, in my opinion, an appropriate characterization as a "search term". The repointing to the date page is almost equally bad since it violates all our conventions and standards on date formatting. Rossami (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. So many other possibilities. January 2008, 2008, etcetera. This movie will be obsolete in months anyway. — Steven Evens (contribs) 00:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete before someone created tenths of similar-- Nips (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The 08 at the end is the best reason to delete it.-- Magioladitis (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Needless vandal redirect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floaterfluss (talk • contribs) 01:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as clear vandalism. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 01:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 03:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. By my rough count, there are over 8000 current inbound links (and who knows how many more in history). This is a highly specialized word used throughout the project and only in the context of the project. It can not be easily mistaken for anything else. Anyone looking for this word will be looking for exactly this definition. Any theoretical downside to cross-namespace redirects is massively outweighed by the damage that would be done by breaking all those links. Rossami (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Rossami. MikeHobday (talk) 21:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep nice argument - mind the precedent however Victuallers (talk) 23:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that "Ron Ryan" should redirect to Philadelphia Flyers. Either the article on him should be restored, or the redirect should just be plain deleted. Enigmaman (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as he isn't known only for the Flyers. Edit history with content not merged anywhere. Only incoming link is from Blanchard Ryan, which is not a good target either, and actually has more information on him than his old article. –Pomte 10:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree as above ... plus there will be other Ron Ryans Victuallers (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Enigmaman (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Nips (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsensical redirect. David Pro (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trivial nonsense redirect [would anyone search for 'ej the dj' expecting to get to 'Elton John'? ><RichardΩ612 23:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ej the DJ is a not a nickname for Elton John. EJF (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Check this Google search, there are about 1,640,000 results. David Pro (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your google search is malformed and is returning all instances of "ej" and "dj" regardless of proximity. A google search on the exact phrase "ej the dj" returns a mere 6000-odd hits, the most relevant of which do not appear to refer to Elton John. Rossami (talk) 14:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above deletes and Rossami. I've performed other searches, and Elton John doesn't appear to be the most relevant. Rudget. 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unneccesary. David Pro (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Unnecessary" is not a deletion criterion for redirects. In this particular case, the phrase is actually mentioned in appropriate context in the target article. This seems like an appropriate, though somewhat trivial, use of a redirect to me. Rossami (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial means unlikely. We cannot handle trivial unlikelys. Maybe policy needs tweaking? Victuallers (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the slogan is asserted to be famous, and is mentioned in several sources. It's reasonable to search for this to find out more of the history behind it. Sure we can handle trivial unlikelys. –Pomte 23:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirect. David Pro (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't see why it's misleading. I've never heard anyone else be referred to with that title. Enigmaman (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unneccesary. michfan2123 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• "Unnecessary" is not a deletion criterion for redirects. Enigmaman (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 3640 Google News results for both terms in the same article. If someone hears about His Airness and doesn't know who it is, they might look it up. –Pomte 23:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Possible search term. Enigmaman (talk) 08:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed. michfan2123 (talk) 18:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Looking at the respective edit histories, it appears that content from this page was merged to the target page. GFDL requires us to keep the attribution history of our material. A history-merger would be inappropriate in this case since it would completely muddle the actual history of the two pages. Leaving the page history and the redirect is the cleanest way to comply with the GFDL requirement. Rossami (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to preserve edit history. –Pomte 00:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful and makes no sense. David Pro (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• According to this website], "Henri Defense" was an alias used by the fictional character in a single episode of a Young Indiana Jones television show. The alias is not mentioned in the target article (or the article about the TV show). While it now makes some sense, the connection appears too trivial to support a redirect to either destination. Delete as more likely to confuse than to help our readers. Anyone actually looking for that particular title is already going to know that they need to be looking in the context of the Indiana Jones characters. Rossami (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete minimal connection; all possible targets not explanatory. –Pomte 00:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a very unlikely term for someone to search for. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redir. David Pro (talk) 20:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, a google search on that exact phrase returns 156 non-duplicative hits but none of them appear to be relevant. They are almost all puns of "hare" (for "hair") in cartoon titles. For example, "SAM & BUGS - Hare Trigger". I doubt the redirect would be meant to describe anything else but I can't find any evidence that this particular phrase exists outside Wikipedia either. Delete for lack of notability. Rossami (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not an alias. –Pomte 13:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. And let's preemptively salt Hemipterans Lagomorph to prevent a slippery slope. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all links that use this redirect, it is not needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michfan2123 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep because it documents a very recent pagemove. The redirect serves to point all the original contributors to the new title and prevents the accidental forking of content. Please remember that the redirects are automatically created by the pagemove process on purpose. By the way, there are still 11 active links that I could find and who knows how many more in history. Any of those could be resurrected at any time if, for example, a page has to be reverted to fix vandalism. The redirect catches all those historical links. So, yes, this redirect is still needed. Rossami (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep plausible search term anyway, as plenty of articles end in (golfer), a user may habitually type it in to avoid having to disambiguate. –Pomte 00:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]