April 20

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 20, 2008

2000-aj jaroj → 2000s

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why this exists, unlikely search term and a possible nonsense redirect. RichardΩ6 12 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's Esperanto: eo:2000-aj jaroj. Not nonsense, but I don't think it's a useful redirect on the English Wikipedia. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

ʤɔɹʤ ˈwɔːkəɹ bʊʃ → George W. Bush

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phonetic form of the target article. Almost impossible search term given the density of special characters. RichardΩ6 12 16:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nobody is going to search for the phonetic spelling of George W. Bush. ~A H1^(TCU) 20:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only would nobody- it would require coding all of those symbols to even use it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Brainwashing cult → Scientology

The result of the debate was Two deleted and one re-targeted. $cientology is an example at Satiric misspelling#"$" replacing "S"; "€" replacing "E", "£" replacing "L". -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money-Making Cult
$cientology

I know redirects don't have to be NPOV, but these just seem to be blatant attacks on the target. RichardΩ6 12 16:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In order: Delete, delete, and delete. "Brainwashing" has been ascribed to many cults; "Money-making cult" could just as easily apply to the PTL Club and similar enterprises; "$cientology" is an unlikely search term - it is more an attack on the religion. B.Wind (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think these redirects are offending.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep $cientology - it's an attack, but the attack term is in fairly common use outside Wikipedia (see Google), so it's marginally acceptable as a possible search term. The others are worthless - delete them. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep $cientology per Gavia immer's search and retarget per Terraxos; delete the other two as being offensive and non-specific. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest retargeting $cientology to Satiric misspelling#"$" replacing "S"; "€" replacing "E", "£" replacing "L" (several similar terms, like Bu$h and M$, redirect to that page). Delete the rest as non-NPOV. Terraxos (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the "Brainwashing cult" redirect, as a violation of NPOV ("brainwashing" could refer to any cult, and has probably been used to describe most religions). Retarget "$cientology" per User:Terraxos (as is done for Bu$h and U$A). --Snigbrook ^(talk) 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Last one ($cientology) has been speedied. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete all...aren't all three of these redirects attack pages? --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the first two as attack-only redirects. The third one "$cientology" is/was in common use on alt.religion.scientology but is also an attack term ~~so I'd say weak delete on that last one. Still leaning delete because its main intention is to disparage the subject.~~ redirect it to Satiric misspelling as suggested above. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:00, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Miserable cocksucker → Jimmy Wales

The result of the debate was Speedy Delete per CSD G10. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant attack redirect, creator's only contrib was to make this. RichardΩ6 12 16:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Blatant attack and obvious vandalism. ~A H1^(TCU) 21:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a blatant personal attack. Scog (talk) 21:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Why would anybody create a new account just to create this attack page redirect? It's the editor's only contribution under the name in the history of this piece of vandalism. B.Wind (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a vandalism redirect. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as vandalism and personal attack.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipediyeah → Wikipedia

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be complete nonsense. 0 GHits and nothing about 'Wikipediyeah' in the WP article. RichardΩ6 12 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original author stated in the edit comment that he/she created it in anticipation of a possible spelling error. Assuming good faith, I doubt anybody would actually punch this in unless to make a joke or an editorial comment. B.Wind (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as improbable typo, probably qualifies for speedy under CSD R3. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia(r) → Wikipedia

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia with the regd. trademark sign, very unlikely search term. No links. RichardΩ6 12 15:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete robot-generated redirect. B.Wind (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

NPOV-pedia → Wikipedia

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, no references to this could be found via Google. No links. RichardΩ6 12 15:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Why would anybody create a new account just to create this attack page redirect? It's the editor's only contribution under the name in the history of this piece of vandalism. B.Wind (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per B.Wind.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. No apparent usage of the term at all. KleenupKrew (talk) 11:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

ˌwiˑkiˈpidi.ə → Wikipedia

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ˌwɪkiˈpidi.ə - No links
ˌwiˑkiˈpidi.ɐ - No links
ʍıkıpǽdıą - No links
UikiPEdi,as - No links, no special chars. but still an unlikely search
Gwikqkiqkpaeditya - No links
,wi.ki'pidi.@ - No links
,wi.ki'pidi.a - No links
,wIki'pidi.@ - No links

Phonetic representations of Wikipedia, almost impossible search terms given the amount of special characters. No links. >< RichardΩ6 12 14:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of these appear to be likely search terms. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Phonetic representatios of terms are virtually always highly improbable search terms. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Universe, Relation of God to the → God

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God, Relation of the Universe to (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Same principle, slightly different wording

Split title makes this a very unlikely search term. No links. >< RichardΩ6 12 12:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Unlikely for anyone to search for that term but if it was "Relation of God to the Universe", which is more likely to be searched for, then it should be fine. ~A H1^(TCU) 21:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom (unlikely search terms due to splitting). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rowan Stokes → God

The result of the debate was speedy delete as nonsense (G1); see also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 20. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a complete nonsense redirect. No links RichardΩ6 12 12:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirecting a name that has no links to an article such as God is completely nonsensual. ~A H1^(TCU) 21:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Lack of sensuality aside, it's nonsense: Rowan and Stokes are two counties in North Carolina. B.Wind (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense.--Lenticel ^(talk) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jeff Head Associates → Atheism

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no relation between this and Atheism, extremely unlikely search term. No links. RichardΩ6 12 12:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was created with the notation "voluntary atheistic charity group". Jeff Head Associates seem to be a European company of database consultants who contribute regularly to the Financial Times. Delete as I could not find enough to write a stub article for the group. B.Wind (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible advertising, clearly not useful. Terraxos (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

World of Warcraft Redirects

The result of the debate was Deleted except for Gates of Ahn'Qiraj. That one is mentioned at target article so it is a reasonable search term. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following unlikely search terms:

Stoneskin gargoyle cape - No links
Venom sac (world of warcraft item) - No links
Eyes of elune - No links
Gerplex - No links
Emperor Vek'nilash - No links and no relation to its target section.
Vek'nilash - No links in articles and no relation to its target section.
Felsteed - No links
The Blue Recluse - No links
Smolderthorn - No links
Gates of Ahn'Qiraj - No links in articles and no relation to its target section

These seem extremely unlikely search terms and many have no relation to the sections of the World of Warcraft article they redirect to. RichardΩ6 12 12:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not useful as redirects. Terraxos (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

KH: BBS → Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep

The result of the debate was Kept. A quick google search shows that "Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep" (with the colon) is used quite frequently. This is a reasonable abbreviation which makes it a likely search phrase. Redirects are cheap. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre abbreviation Toddst1 (talk) 03:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BBS is a pretty common abbreviation on fan forums. I don't understand where the bizarreness is, other than possibly capitalizing the second "b".SedireX (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a problem with this redirect. We've got other redirects for games too, just like this one (e.g. DBZ:BT3). nneonneo ^talk 03:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The colon makes it an unlikely search target, and BBS has multiple meanings. Delete B.Wind (talk) 03:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If someone were to look at the logo, they'd see that Birth by Sleep is in much smaller font than Kingdom Hearts. In most logos, that implies a colon (see Halo: Combat Evolved or Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, so it's an easy mistake to make. SedireX (talk) 22:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note. "Birth By Sleep" and "Birth by Sleep" would be much more likely search items for redirects... and neither of these exist as of this writing.B.Wind (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So make 'em. Be bold.SedireX (talk) 22:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        NOTE. WP:BOLD encourages boldness, it does not require it. Furthermore, it applies to all editors, including those who encourage others to be bold. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You did the same thing I did, but we're off topic, and it exists now, ready to be put on this page for being unnecessary and unlikely. SedireX (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete far less likely search term than BBS, which is the most likely abbreviation one would type in for this. Also, beware of assumptions that are dressed in the garb of "implications". 147.70.242.40 (talk) 16:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nellie Minkova → Max Levchin

The result of the debate was Deleted (as qualified as db-author). -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a redirect of the destination article's wife. Gary King (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have eliminated a link in the target article to the page in question. While the inclusion of the mention of his wife in the target article is questionable, notability (or lack thereof) is not a condition for deciding whether a redirect should be deleted. ~~As long as she is mentioned in the article, keep as a valid search term as it is possible that someone would remember her name instead of his.~~ B.Wind (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The one line mention of her being Max Levchin's fiancée (not "wife") has been removed. Mere mentions of nn wives and fiancées are not encyclopedic. 147.70.242.40 (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my !vote to delete as there is no longer any mention of her in the target article.B.Wind (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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