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 Re-targeted to Sam Jacks. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The inventor of ringette → Ringette (links to redirect • history • stats) 

In keeping with my comment on Who Cartman's Father is, I'm nominating this, which was the result of redirecting an article on Sam Jacks, who, you guessed it, invented the game of ringette. Why someone chose to redirect this to Ringette rather than Sam Jacks, whose article had existed for three years, escapes me; in any event, time to finish the cleanup. For every item X, we do not need The inventor of X → X.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Sam Jacks (whose article credits him as the inventor of the sport) - it should also be pointed out that fine tuning the redirect to Ringette#Recent development would also be appropriate as that section of the target article discusses Sam Jacks and his role in the invention of the game. Keeping or retargeting would be consistent with WP:RFD#KEEP either way. Not needing a specific redirect (due to possible redundancy) is not necessarily a reason for deleting one that already exists - it basically means that we don't need to go out of out way to create a new one, but since it's here, there is no reason to get rid of it as its existence does not lead to confusion. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:24, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget per 147.70.242.54, a much more sensible target. However, I do agree that if the inventor of X doesn't have an article, The inventor of X should not redirect to X. - Mobius Clock 14:57, 1 May 2010 (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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Who Cartman's Father is → Cartman's Mom Is Still a Dirty Slut (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The redirect is an obscure re-phrasing of the target article that I highly doubt a significant number of users would actually use in a search. In fact, the redirect was at first a PROD'ed article created with completely erroneous information, and was not intended to guide directly to the target article at all. SoSaysChappy (talk) 06:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the target is the episode in which Cartman's mother is revealed to be his father (Ms. Cartman is a hermaphrodite, as confirmed by her). This was the second of a two-part episode in which Cartman was trying to find out the identity of his father... hardly an unimportant plot point in the early years of this series. B.Wind (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the original article was properly prodded as crystal balling and properly redirected to an article on an early episode (the second of two) which revolved about the identity of Cartman's father. This could have easily been targeted to Cartman's Mom Is a Dirty Slut, the first of the two part story, but the current target has the resolution of the question. Had the nominator bothered to check the current target of the redirect, he/she would have noted the significance of the story. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The comments above are right: the target definitely discusses the issue of who Cartman's father is. However, Wikipedia is not Wikianswers. We don't have Who the first man in space was → Yuri Gagarin, The inventor of dynamite → Alfred Nobel, or Who Josh Brolin's wife is → Diane Lane. I'm with the nom on this one: it's just a redirect from an unlikely, ill-formed phrase created as the result of cleaning up an incorrectly titled article.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er...for the record, I never tried to contest the "importance" or "significance" of the target article, nor its relevance to the redirect (in that it links to the "answer" of who Eric Cartman's father is). Glenfarclas explained my position better than I did. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relevance? You mean aside from the episode that many people refer to as "the episode that states that Carman's mom is his dad?" The relevance couldn't be more evident. Note the the broadcast episodes do not display their episode titles. This is not only a plausible search item, it is a likely search item. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not an issue over whether or not the subject of the target article is significant. And if you read what I typed again, you will see that I said there is some relevance. You've made your point by saying it's a useful search term. My point is that we can't supply an exposition of each and every possible search phrase. Besides, this redirect is not necessary for such a search phrase to guide a user to the target article. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per WP:RFD#KEEP, redundancy is not an argument for deleting redirects. Different readers and editors search in different ways. Is this a plausible search item that "aid searches on certain terms" and that "someone finds [it] useful"? Certainly it is (SoSaysChappy in fact has conceded the former point) - and points #3 and #5 of WP:RFD#KEEP specifically state the phrases in quotations as reasons to keep the redirect. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In light of the episode "201", which aired last night, this redirect now makes even less sense. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate. How does the episode that aired within the past 24 hours negate WP:RFD#KEEP? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The answer to the "question" the redirect poses can conceivably be found in other articles as well, such as "201" and Eric Cartman. That leads me to believe that it's not useful as a search term specific to the target article, and complies more with #7 of WP:RFD#DELETE. But, you say it does. Point made. I'm all discussed out on this. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 03:05, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Term is an unlikely search term. I may be convinced that Cartman's father could be redirect, but not an awkward phrase like the current link. Chappy makes good points about how are redirects aren't questions that lead to answers and that the answer has changed since "201" aired. —Ost (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An unlikely search term, and the target is not exclusive (i.e. as discussed above, it could point to multiple articles). If people want the answer to such a question, they can just Google it and find out. - Mobius Clock 14:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]