Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 13

The result of the discussion was delete A.W.O.L. (2007) and A.W.O.L. (1999 film). Also deleting A.W.O.L. (2007 film) by same reasoning.--Aervanath (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong year, not needed as a redirect. Tavix (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not only wrong year, but no context for it to make sense. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While we're at it, we should also delete A.W.O.L. (1999 film) for the same reason. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Keep. (non-admin closure) Mastrchf (^t/_c) 16:06, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's just me, but I'm not sure that a ton of people accidentally use backticks instead of single quotes. I just thought I'd bring this up because it was made recently and I dislike a cluttered wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oneirist (talk • contribs)

• Keep Redirects clutter (although usually imperceptibly), but we tolerate the clutter because it carries with it benefits to the user (both the reader and the editor). It is not implausible that one should use the backtick for the apostrophe/"neutral" quotation mark, and so the redirect probably well serves as a navigational aid; because we require only that a redirect be useful for it to be kept (absent exceptional circumstances) and do not worry about the proliferation of (at least conceivably) useful redirects, deletion doesn't seem appropriate here (even as, as an obsessive type myself, I can't look at "Sinéad O`Connor" without twitching a bit). Joe 04:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Joe's arguments. --Eivind (t) 15:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Joe's arguments. TerriersFan (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was delete.--Aervanath (talk) 07:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing, due to a misspelling of "Colombia" as "Columbia" (the capital of South Carolina). Delete and recreate as Government of Colombia.  Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Government of Colombia already exists as an article on its own. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as potentially confusing redirect - Columbia/Colombia are often confused, and Columbia itself has multiple meanings. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above as confusing. JohnCD (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, Comment Redirect to Government of Colombia until article is written about government in Columbia, South Carolina, then add disambiguation. --Mr Accountable (talk) 02:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - which Columbia? Columbia, South Carolina? Columbia, Tennessee? Columbia, Missouri? Columbia, New Hampshire? Columbia, Pennsylvania? Columbia, Virginia? There are about two dozen U.S. cities named Columbia, from Maine to California... and I'm sure there are cities in other countries with that name as well. Much too confusing... and too much, really, for a disambiguation page. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. Notability has little application to redirects, making the arguments to delete here weaker, but nor is the association prominently mentioned. All of the arguments here are weak, and redirects are cheap.--Aervanath (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication that the "W lovers" are really that notable. This was basically a sketch on Sesame Street and the Bert article makes little mention of this sketch. Tavix (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as the organization has been prominently mentioned (since at least 1/1/07) in the 2nd paragraph of the first sub-section and there seems to be little likelihood it would mis-lead anyone who did enter it as a search. --RCEberwein | Talk 18:38, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So... are you opposing the existence of the redirect, or its deletion? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the fictional organization has had zero coverage in independent reliable sources, except for a parody article in a University of Wisconsin student newspaper.[1] The phrase in question has no meaning outside of Sesame Street. B.Wind (talk) 05:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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