Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 December 17

• K madhavan → K. Madhavan (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Target recently deleted as a copyvio, and had other problems. There is no telling when or if a proper article about this person will be created, or what the exact title will be. Until there is such an article the redirect seems to serve little purpose. Delete. DES ^(talk) 20:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as redirect to deleted page Josh Parris 11:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per Parris. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Etan (band) → Etan (links to redirect • history • stats) 

delete, hoax target, see Wikipedia:An/i#Network_of_hoaxes_needs_attention Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment once the longstanding hoax stuff is deleted, any redirects will be speedied for not having a target. Is there any reason to start before the articles themselves are deleted? Josh Parris 11:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Disposophobia → Compulsive_hoarding (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Deletion; the term "disposophobia is a neologism coined by Ron Alford and intended as the title for a book he seems to have never completed (the title is mentioned in a 2004 New Yorker article, but I didn't find the book in Worldcat). No academic journals use the term. I ran across it in the Collyer Brothers article, and removed it there. As far as I can tell, it does not appear in any other articles. I do not believe a term made up and used by a single person warrants a redirect, but leave it to the wisdom of the group Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 13:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep of course. 28,900 Ghits for "Disposophobia". Why didn't the nominator do that simple search? Every word in use was made up by a person at some point, the question is has the word penetrated beyond that one person. The 28,900 Ghits says yes. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reconsideration: I'm not familiar with Redirects for discussion; I applied Articles for deletion standards, & can see why I shouldn't have -- two different things entirely. Looking at the stats, it does appear the word gets searched for here on WP, so it makes sense for the redirect to exist. Just so long as there's no article by that name, and the word itself doesn't get used as a synonym in existing articles, which obviously is beyond the power of any person to make happen or not, & not germaine to this discussion anyway. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Puppy. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Puppey → Dog (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Should be deleted, nobody would spell puppy like that. 17 page views in November, but mostly from the user who created the redirect in the first place. -- BigDom 10:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Puppy. The nobodies that spell it like that include William Shakespeare [1][2], James Woodforde [3], Thomas Killigrew [4], Norman Lockyer [5], George Crabbe [6], Jane Sharp [7], James Moore Smythe [8], and lexicographer Samuel Johnson [9]. Besides, it's a perfectly reasonable spelling error, which is part of what redirects are all about. — The Man in Question (in question) 00:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Mycoxafloppin → Sildenafil (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete, as per Mycoxaflopin (hee, hee). Dethroned Buoy (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment whilst I laud the consistency, as Mycoxafloppin has been viewed 26 times in 200911 with no internal links, I'm concerned that there may be call for this joke redirect. Josh Parris 07:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep subject of a joke with significant penetration and a likely target of searches Reswobslc (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In that case you might want to re-add Mycoxaflopin as a plausible alternative spelling. Dethroned Buoy (talk) 03:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per this. — The Man in Question (in question) 06:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn, the page is no longer a redirect, and works well as a disambig page. --Taelus (talk) 09:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Blood Knight → Warcraft (series) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Redirect created after article was listed as PROD. I stand by my assertion with the PROD that this is not a helpful redirect, there is no information about the subject in the target, or any of the targets subpages. Blood Knights have had very light coverage in the long series, and do not meet the notability guidelines for inclusion as a subsection on an article, thus this information will not be present on Wikipedia. Whilst we do have an article for factions and races, that only details very major groups, not every group which has featured in the series. For those not familiar with the game, this group has only recieved minor attention in one expansion pack. Taelus (talk) 01:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment extensive traffic (Blood_Knight has been viewed 191 times in 200911), not insubstantial edit history, no internal links, maybe a couple of external links in, might be confused with The Blood Knight, possibly mentioned in The Da Vinci Code Josh Parris 02:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The traffic is not for the redirect, it was a redirect for only a few hours before I listed it. It was previously marked for deletion as it was an article which did not assert notability. Also, traffic shouldn't mean anything in this case, the information won't be on Wikipedia thus we shouldn't mislead users by sending them looking for it via redirects to semi-relevant pages. --Taelus (talk) 10:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The traffic seems to suggest that there is interest in the topic. I created the redirect to prevent deletion, given that the nominator judged the article to be insufficient. I would have no objection to an improved article, but as I don't play Warcraft I could make not such improvements myself. Perhaps a better redirect target would be Races and factions of Warcraft#Blood Elves? Cnilep (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an acceptable outcome I suppose... However, personally I am not a fan of redirects to locations which don't actually contain the relevant information. It's like an unspoken "You must have meant this semi-relevant topic" pointer, which leaves some users confused. Also whilst I appreciate the invalidity of the following argument, I still feel I should mention that there are thousands of such redirect terms which could be plausible if we go down the "Here is a topic semi-relevant to your search term" route just for this one game series. However I will not oppose consensus to redirect, but I feel I must represent my personal belief, after all I was inspired to get an account in order to fix up frustrating redirects! --Taelus (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the page originally read, [sic] "The Blood Knights are order of Blood Elf Paladins residing in Silvermoon City in the fantasy MMORPG (Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game) World of Warcraft." Cnilep (talk) 14:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Dabify I've WP:BOLDly built a dab page at this location. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]