Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 29

The result of the discussion was Keep. Ruslik (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nonsensical, per provision 4 (similar to "google -> love"). Mote (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as google returns numerous results for this term all being used to mean the iPhone. PaulJones (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Example of usage: [1] Tavix (talk) 01:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is a violation of NPOV to redirect "Jesus phone" to the iPhone article without there being any mention of the term in the article. If "Jesus phone" is a notable phrase, then the article could mention it with appropriate sourcing, and then the redirect would be fine. Mike R (talk) 15:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • if articles mentioned all the slang terms that had been used then they would be a mess, particularly as slang usage can come and go rapidly. PaulJones (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV and notability don't apply to redirects, so you're argument is null.--Patton^t/c 16:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Mike R, not a widely used term outside the blogosphere, not mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the likes of The Register and The Economist have commented on the term its usage is extending beyong geekland. PaulJones (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, in that this does seem to be somewhat-notable slang name, but only if mention of the term is actually added to the article itself. Terraxos (talk) 20:02, 31 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 Replaced with a valid redirect. - 7-bubёn >t 18:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is listed as a stub in Cat: Italian writer stubs; but the correct name is the other.--Broletto (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Close - deletion of stub articles must be performed through WP:PROD (proposed deletion), WP:CSD (speedy deletion), or WP:AfD (articles for deletion)... and this stub seems to have enough content/context to make it ineligible for speedy deletion. On the other hand, if the former and the latter are one and the same person, then boldly converting the first article into a redirect onto the second would be a prudent thing to do. But this is the forum for discussing currently-existing redirects, not whether or not an article should be turned into a redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not familiar with the process. Since Baricchi is a wrong name for this Italian writer born in Turin, and a stub, while Alessandro Baricco is ok, someone could please help? Thank you.--Broletto (talk) 20:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No problem (another editor got to it before I returned) - there is always something to learn about Wikipedia, no matter how experienced you are... 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Baricchi isn't his name. I don't see what the IPs are after. Tavix (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to User:147.70.242.54, note that at the time of his first post, there was no redirect - Baricchi was then a stub article, not a redirect. Nom wanted the article to be deleted, if I read correctly; after the IP's first post, nom requested assistance and User:Hersfold formed a redirect (I am assuming that he/she was following up on the above request). So nom got his/her requested redirect, which most likely would have resulted in the closing of this RfD... until a !Delete vote appeared (I must assume that you are urging the deletion of the newly-formed redirect as anything before that is beyond the scope of WP:RfD. As Paul Harvey would say, Now you know the rest of the story! B.Wind (talk) 05:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tavix, if you want the redirect to be deleted, I'd strongly recommend that you ask an admin to close this discussion (which should have been speedily closed four days ago as wrong forum), revert the creation of the redirect, and take it to WP:AfD was it was not a redirect until after the listing was posted here. Striking your "delete" !vote here would not be a bad idea, either as it is keeping the discussion from being closed. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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