Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 2

Completing nomination started by User:Kung Fu Man 24 August 2008. Malformed redirect name is a most unlikely search item. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as unlikely search term. Stifle (talk) 09:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is unlikely that anyone will type in "Yun-seong (redirect)" when searching for Yun-seong (Soulcalibur). Suntag (talk) 08:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the video game Resistance 2 set for a release in less than two months and the cover art revealed, it is safe to assume that the game's title won't be changed. The game's title has consistently been "Resistance 2," and the endings "Rise of Man" and "United we fall" are nothing more than creative speculation; there is no source that has said they were even considered as possible titles for the game. Also considering that the title is "Resistance 2" only, the chance of the longer titles being commonly used in searches for the game article is unlikely. -- Comandante {Talk} 21:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One small point. If these are kept the should all redirect to Resistance 2 because I doubt that anyone using these redircts would be looking for the PSP game. --76.71.210.4 (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unless this becomes a well-known term aside from internet speculation. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, this term may be unpleasant, but the purpose of a re-direct is to help somebody looking for a certain subject find it. I have heard this term used before, and I'm sure others have as well. Redirects are cheap, and are not subject to WP:NPOV. -Brougham96 (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: discussion of Baby-gate below also pertains to this one. It is suggested that additional comments be added there, instead of here, so that a joint nomination not be confused with two separate ones (with the first one not having an apparent rationale). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects are a neologism for the recent news event involving either Sarah Palin's fifth child, or possibly her second child's pregnancy. Nothing links to them and it seems quite unlikely that anyone would search for this newly coined term. Coemgenus 19:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. I was just coming here to nominate these myself - they are, at least, premature, and without anything of substance to refer to beyond internet speculation from far afield, they likely violate BLP. If there's ever any sign that this will progress beyond online slurs, they can of course be recreated without prejudice. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as the only "sources" using "Babygate" are blogs; "Baby Gate®" is a trademark for a fence designed to keep babies away from swimming pools. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless this becomes a well-known term aside from internet speculation. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per lack of use (deemed through Google search). Don't protect creation in case the terms do catch on and a redirect is necessary. Joshdboz (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both as a trite snowclone. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both and protect from recreation. Hobartimus (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, I searched for it, at least. Still, we might as well delete it and create it again if the term becomes more established. --Kvaks (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Yes, this term may be unpleasant, but the purpose of a re-direct is to help somebody looking for a certain subject find it. I have heard this term used before, and I'm sure others have as well. Redirects are cheap, and are not subject to WP:NPOV. -Brougham96 (talk) 01:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, here is a quick article to prove the term has been used in media: [[1]]

• Keep I'm not a fan of this term and it likely is politically/tabloid motivated. However, Google shows a significant connection between the term babygate and Sarah Palin. When people search Wikipedia for babygate, they likely want to read about Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy. Although the topic is spread around in Wikipedia,[2] Wikipedia's best balanced coverage of Sarah Palin's daughter's pregnancy is in Sarah_Palin#Personal_life. I support the removal of the term babygate when it appears in a Wikipedia article, but it does seem useful as a redirect to where the topic is best covered by Wikipedia. Suntag (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - If the issue is insignificant enough to not warrant its own article, I see no need for redirects to an article which is mainly concernced with the life and career of a single person, rather than an incident or scandal that the person is related to. -- Comandante {Talk} 22:27, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably this was meant to be usefull when editors make a spelling mistake by dropping the L, but in this case [3] it caused the double addition of references as User:Smackbot did not take into account its existence. I think it would be preferable to address editors to their mistake immeditately by not redirecting the typo MickMacNee (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously if it gets deleted, the incoming links it currently has, about 20-30, will need to be fixed. MickMacNee (talk) 16:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC) I've done it anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 16:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A plausible typo. There's probably something that can be done to fix the bot. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - If this was a mainspace redirect to an article, I'd concur with the comment above. However, it's a template redirect to one of our most-used templates, so the proper template name should be used; if someone types the name incorrectly, they will see a redlink and be prompted to fix the typo. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy. Bruce Forsyth has not been knighted so this is a misnomer. You might argue that it is a plausible misnomer, but having the redirect implies that the title exists and is therefore misinformation. Ros0709 (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as crystal balling per [4]. There is an Internet drive to get him knighted. Wikipedia should not be pushed into advocacy here; should the drive be successful, the redirect can be reinstated then. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the fact that he isn't knighted so that's Crystal balling like the IP said. The article doesn't mention his knighting, and its slightly POVish for advocating his knighting. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 22:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• It's nice to delete you… to delete you, nice! He hasn't been knighted yet, and he probably never will be (shame!), so… yeah. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]