Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 5

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 14:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a funny one. The problem is that the first letter is not a latin character but a greek one! It's not a capital m, as it should, but a capital μ. Mu-law algorithm exists and has many links to it. As well µ-law algorithm has many links to it. The first one has none. It's mixing greek and latin characters making it a redirect page resulting from an implausible typo and nothing more. Magioladitis (talk) 23:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Redirects are cheap, cause no harm, and aid readers in finding articles. A reader may copy/paste from another location and try to find our article, why should we prevent this? How is it beneficial to take away this redirect? JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the possibility that someone c/p a string that mixes greek and latin characters? We have there all the normal possibilities. Greek μ and English spelled Mu. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked google for μu. No normal results. Only nonsense and source code. -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Source code is exactly the kind of place I would expect to see a reader stop, wonder: "what's that?" and come here to find out. So your example is a great illustration for my argument to keep. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • :) Well... check what i mean in my google search. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I used this google search, and particularly note the hits associated with linux, RTP toolkit, stdin/ditroff, toast, promina, dti encoding, and x2 technology. It's true that people reading those pages are probably smarter than the average bear, but why not give them easy navigation redirects? JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Agreed that it's a bit unusual but it's not harmful or confusing and to all appearances it's being used appropriately. Even if rare, redirects are cheap. Rossami (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Under the circumstances, it's just barely potentially useful -which is enough to keep a redirect. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Some greek people mix Greek and English characters. Especially in capital letters. -- Nips (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2008 (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 by Mike Rosoft. —Random832 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joke redirect, unlikely search target, no incoming links Phirazo 20:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Obviously a joke. I think the usr who created has to take a warning. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ID10T clause. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete –Pomte 13:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jerry. Thundermaster^TRUC 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Enigmaman (talk) 08:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Wizardman 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joke redirect. Phirazo 20:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see no connection. Most likely a joke. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random or inside joke. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The joke is based on the allegation that the FBI seizes computers and/or suspects and hauls them away in an unmarked van - thus the subject has been "vanned" or "v-and" or "V&". I can find only trivial references to the term, however. And regardless, Wikipedia is not Wiktionary. Delete. Rossami (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to List of Internet slang specific to thread-based communication unless there is consensus to take it off that list. –Pomte 13:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obscure inside joke. --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (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. Wizardman 02:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect. — Save_Us_229 20:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete although I always enjoy any reference to Aeschylus, I must admit this redirect is lame. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• If I remember right, this was created as part of a particularly contentions deletion debate about the appropriateness of a "list of deaths" page. Nowadays, it probably would be considered a WP:POINT violation. Regardless, the joke's over. Delete. (None of the inbound links will be any worse off if the POINT is made with a redlink.) Rossami (talk) 04:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Unlikely search term. Thundermaster^TRUC 16:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I hope we don't have a redirect for all the possible ways of dieing. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Totally unlikely search term. I was considering nominating homosexual necrophilia in the mallard duck for similar sorts of reasons...--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 12:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No comment, actually. I'm speechless. Jack^(Lumber) 00:08, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete oh! you have to write Mallard with two 'L's. Thanks! Victuallers (talk) 23:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but damn funny! --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete no jokes in the mainspace. --Thinboy00 @233, i.e. 04:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was "Love and Theft" kept and the remainder deleted. -- JLaTondre 14:54, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All these 12 cases have quotes that are useless. Either they redirect to the same pagename without the quotes or a redirect without the quotes exist. Brianga after I tagged them for speedy deletion, didn't delete them because CSD R3 is for "recently-created redirect pages". These, as some more cases i nominated some days ago are redirects really unnecessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Love Is For Suckers" → Love Is For Suckers
• "Loushan Pass" → Loushan Pass
• "Lori Bryant-Woolridge" → Lori Bryant-Woolridge
• "Loose Tubes" → Loose Tubes
• "Logic Made Easy" → Logic Made Easy
• "List of songs about Melbourne→ List of songs about Melbourne (this has quote only from left!)
• "List Of Barney & Friends Episodes" → List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos (a redirect without quotes exists)
• "Leyland Band" → Leyland Band
• "Leopold William of Habsburg" → Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria (a redirect without quotes exists)
• "Leaf protein concentrate" → Leaf protein concentrate
• "Laura Veirs" → Laura Veirs

• delete quite unnecessary and possibly disruptive. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Thundermaster^TRUC 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not need redirs with quotation marks for everything. In the rare case of their use, the target will be at the top of the search results. Reywas92^Talk 18:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even better, if the redirect with quotes doesn't exist the user accesses immediately the correct article -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as they document page moves (and stop the page being recreated with a bad title) -- Ratarsed (talk) 13:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Disruptive. -- Nips (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Love and Theft" as it is the official name of the album in the same way as "Heroes" and therefore it is possible someone will enter the quotation marks. Also articles are likely to be linked to it. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, you mean "keep this and delete the rest" I hope. Moreover, if he puts something with quotes, he will go in the article without the quotes. No problem. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• "Delete" or Delete Victuallers (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Love and Theft", which is the actual album title, and move Love and Theft to "Love and Theft" accordingly; delete the others. Jack^(Lumber) 23:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All. No need for them. --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a need for "Love and Theft": as has already been pointed out, it is the actual album title; if you look at the article history you'll see it has been located there in the past. Pawnkingthree (talk) 12:43, 11 January 2008 (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. -- JLaTondre 14:50, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A really confusing redirect. Let There Be Light (without quotes) exists as a DAB page, the quoted version redirects to the short story with that name. If you change to redirect ti the DAB page then it becomes useless since searching with/without quotes in the search box makes no difference. Magioladitis (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete quite unnecessary and possibly disruptive. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Disruptive. -- Nips (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy/snowball/whatever per all. --Thinboy00 @235, i.e. 04:39, 11 January 2008 (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. -- JLaTondre 14:49, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect. No links go to it, missing space makes it unlikely to be navigated to in an effort to find the singer, Farrah King already exists as a redirect to the same article for anyone who does a search for her. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The first version of this page was a copyright violation. Subsequent edits have only been the redirect and disputes about the redirect. Personally, I don't think the current redirect is all that harmful but having the copyvio in history is a bad thing. Delete without prejudice against recreation as a clean redirect if anyone someday thinks that it might be useful. Rossami (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, it's a harmless redirect. And for the record, the first version was not a copyright violation, it was a copy of another Wikipedia page, Felisha King, which has since been redirected. as well. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I don't believe that's the case. The first version was probably copied from Cherish (band) but that content appears to trace back to this copyrighted page. Rossami (talk)
    • Ahhh...in that case, Strong Delete as copyvio. And the other page, too, while we're at it. --UsaSatsui (talk) 19:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unlikley search term, name not appropriate per WP:NAME. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The most annoyin is the missing space between words. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2008 (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. krimpet✽ 06:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an appropriate redirect. meshach (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Certainly not an appropriate redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb JuJube (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete should be a stub for the Journal of Electrical & Electronics Engineering, which I don't think Jesus had much to do with. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Search term unlikely. Thundermaster^TRUC 16:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searching for Jesus is not that difficult ... I'm told Victuallers (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jee with two es is more likely. But three? That's extremely unlikely. Furthermore jee isn't that common for the lord. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Never heard of it. --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball obvious consensus. --Thinboy00 @231, i.e. 04:32, 11 January 2008 (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. krimpet✽ 06:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem to be widely used. meshach (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What is exactly the connection? Was that Jesus' username in Wikipedia or something? -- Magioladitis (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb JuJube (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The name or title by which one refers to their deity has been a subject of interest to mankind from time immemorial. This redirect is not likely to be the answer we have been searching for. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searching for Jesus is not that difficult ... I'm told Victuallers (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. ...If it is used at all. --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy/snowball nonsense/consensus to delete. --Thinboy00 @240, i.e. 04:46, 11 January 2008 (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. krimpet✽ 06:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term meshach (talk) 08:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a joke. According to Wikipedia: Susej (pronounced soo-sedge, similar to sausage) is a common manipulation of the name of Jesus by the process of reversal. This may be used for comic effect, as part of a parody, or sometimes in a derisive sense by those who disagree with Christianity. Check here: Wikipedia:April fools/April Fools' Day 2005/Susej. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb JuJube (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for those who do not get the joke. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I get the joke but it's not funny at all. --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong delete the mainspace is no place for jokes. --Thinboy00 @232, i.e. 04:33, 11 January 2008 (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 Mike Rosoft. —Random832 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There does not seem to be an association between these topics. meshach (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Jordan Bartel is not Jesus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb JuJube (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete random association of disparate subjects. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless. Thundermaster^TRUC 16:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No connection. Enigmaman (talk) 23:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. krimpet✽ 06:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term. meshach (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I laughed when I saw it but this doesn't make it a worthy redirect. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dumb JuJube (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cute but not helpful redirect. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete funny but delete per Nom. Thundermaster^TRUC 16:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searching for Jesus is not that difficult ... I'm told Victuallers (talk) 23:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds like some rap artist or something. :) Enigmaman (talk) 23:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. And not funny. --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (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. I can see both arguments, but the odds of anyone typing the ae character in the search bar to get that... Wizardman 02:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a likely search term. meshach (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All capitals, unlikely to be searched. Maybe meshach you should nominate these "Jesus nicks" all together. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In hindsight I should have, I just did not think that there would be so many of them. In the future I will definatly bundle. meshach (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Magioladitis JuJube (talk) 11:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-english, non-latin, unlikley search. Those searching for this will most-likely already know to look at the Jesus article. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to INRI which is the more commonly known acronym for this phrase. (The phrase translates to ""Jesus the Nazarene, King of the Jews" so a redirect to Jesus is not inappropriate but INRI is probably better.) Rossami (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, the fact that this redirect had a different history and fact-set than the others is a good example why nominating them independently was a good choice. Rossami (talk)
• Retarget to INRI as per Rossami. MikeHobday (talk) 21:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searching for Jesus is not that difficult ... But some make it seem tricky Victuallers (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or retarget to INRI. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No one will ever search for this. --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (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. krimpet✽ 06:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a widely used term. meshach (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete random neologism. JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete per above. -- Magioladitis (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:51, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Searching for Jesus is not that difficult ... I'm told Victuallers (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with above. Enigmaman (talk) 23:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. But after all this I'm arguing about the need of an article named "List of alternate names for Jesus". ...Not. --M4gnum0n (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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