Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 January 31

Originally a fairly silly piece of nonsense about a problem on google, but turning it into a redirect to google makes it into an apparent attack on the site. Mayalld (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Kittybrewster ☎ 15:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for removing the speedy deletion tag but the page was not silly if you check Google news there are lot of posts about this http://news.google.com/news?q=This%20site%20may%20harm%20your%20computer&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Endothermic (talk • contribs) 16:05, 31 January 2009

Keep. As an article there was no real material to be had for something that lasted no more than an hour. For that reason I decided that it would be better as a redirect. After checking the history I noticed it had been tagged as a test page which did not appear to me to be a correct criteria for deleting it, nor did any of the other speedy criteria seem to fit so I went with the redirect. As to it being an attack on Google I disagree. The phrase is a feature provided by Google to help the user. If anythng there should be something in the Google article discussing, not the short problem, but the normal feature and any non-Google reaction/complaints that may or may not exist. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As an article this probably isn't viable; as a redirect it seems perfectly viable to me (being a feature on which people might be searching) unless someone comes up with a better target. – iridescent 16:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Irridescent and Cambridge. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:45, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In no way can this be construed as an attack on Google, it's not valid as an article and the phrase is well known as one used by Google. Redirect seems perfectly correct. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 19:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this phrase is not mentioned in the target article, making it something of an inexplicable redirect. (I know why it was originally created, but I don't think it was an event of any lasting notability.) Also, as the nominator mentions, it looks like an attack redirect, even if it wasn't intended as such. Terraxos (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment changed to redirect to Google search#Error messages as mentioning the phrase, with prejudice to where any redirect is needed.--Rumping (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse retargeting to Google search#Error messages. The added context of the section link should make it perfectly clear this isn't an attack. We definitely don't need an article on the transient bug, though. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to something such as Browser exploit or Malware as the expression is too general to be limited to google's use of it. PaulJones (talk) 10:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The problem that resulted from this error message was a transient event. That event would not normally get its own encyclopedia article, and the search string "this site may harm your computer" is a generic one that a person might conceivably search for a variety of reasons. Maintaining this generic term as a redirect to a subsection of the Google article is unhelpful to users. People who search on this string would be better served by seeing a collection of search results -- which results ought to include Google, Browser exploit, and Malware. --Orlady (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine target to Google#Error message (already done, actually) - as this is a more valid use of a redirect than, say, Do not want. Gavia immer said it best. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - you cannot redirect to a page that does not explain anything about the term. - 7-bubёn >t 17:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent RfD results indicate the contrary. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not contrary: the meaning of the title becomes clear when looking at the redirected title. This is way far not so in our case. - 7-bubёn >t 03:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Especially with the recent issue where SB went down and the whole site was saying it - potential search, target it to Google search#Error messages. — neuro^(talk) 18:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The target is not a disambiguation page. R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:24, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is nothing to disambiguate and keeping it as a blue link could be potentially harmful. Tavix (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is not disambiguating anything. PaulJones (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of redirects to Internet Slang. I have found no evidence (reliable or otherwise) that this is widespread internet slang, making it a very unlikely search term. No other sensible targets (I thought of g, but the asterisks make it rather obscure). Richard⁰⁶¹² 14:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I see that it is a rather lesser known smilie of a guy with a big nose. However, that is not slang and I don't see any better targets so delete. Tavix (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • smiley is not a suitable redirect for a smiley? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's not a smiley, it means "grin". But as the nom said, not a likely search term. JuJube (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup of redirects to Internet Slang. Very unlikely search term for the target and I can see no other sensible target. Richard⁰⁶¹² 14:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as unlikely term. PaulJones (talk) 10:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. JuJube (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useless re-direct with pov/ wp:battleground potential. Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep; a Google search suggests this is a somewhat widely-used word, although there as yet appears to be no clear definition for it. I wouldn't object much to deletion, but I don't think this is a particularly harmful redirect either. Terraxos (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per above; recommend retarget if a better target can be found. Maybe even convert to article? --Thinboy00 @037, i.e. 23:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! 'Convert to article!' - what next, Ansipism, Godmanisitis? Wikipedia is not a news wire, neither is it a soapbox. We need encyclopedic content, not catch-phrases. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why not? google: "Kardetavasti on kõikehõlmav reformistlik doktriin, lihtsustatult – ansipism, ühiskonnale ohtlikumgi kui omaaegne jõuetu pätsism ja „vaikiv ajastu"." You triggered my curiosity. What the heck it is? Must be notable enough so that you mentioned it here. What is it? - 7-bubёn >t 17:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is wikipedia, i.e., source of information. The word is in use and people have right to know what it means. I specifically created a redirect to easily combat creation of fake articles about the word (such as "Obamaism", which was deleted; admins may take a look into history). Now that a reasonable redirect is in place, any other content may be handled without fuss of AfD. - 7-bubёn >t 17:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 19:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? ROTFL - 7-bubёn >t 17:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]