Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 January 6

The result of the debate was Deleted, XNR. --Cyde Weys 01:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cross namespace redirect. Brand-new and no incoming, so nothing is lost getting rid of it. --- RockMFR 23:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Nonsense already exists. Incorrect namespace. Xiner (talk, email) 23:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as cross-namespace redirect. Only in special cases should XNRs arguably be kept, and even then I'd still vote delete. BigNate37_(T) 14:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 09:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an alternate name for this website. Seems to be a reference to the site's logo, but it is neither used in the article nor appears in any google searches. --- RockMFR 23:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Invalid website. Xiner (talk, email) 23:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Xiner Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 21:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 09:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelled redirect not likely to be used by any one. --- Skapur 03:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unlikely typo, and one has to suspect that the target article will not be with us for long. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 15:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Seeing as how the main article isn't goin got be hanging around, no need for the redirect. --Wizardman 17:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as plausible typo and stop predicting the future. CSD R1 can take care of things if and when the target is deleted, it is foolish to consider the article's future existence in evaluating the worth of the redirect. Someone obviously found this useful in creating it, and "target probably won't stay around" isn't a deletion criteria for redirects. I've tagged it with {{R from mispelling}}. BigNate37_(T) 18:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, the article was created at the wrong name and moved showing the plausibility and usefulness of this redirect. BigNate37_(T) 18:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are going to speculate on the plausibility of its usefulness, how about the speculation that the person made a typo creating this article and just plain did not know how to get it deleted --- Skapur 18:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That much is obvious. Try not to make smart-ass comments, it isn't helpful. The fact that the user made the typo is clear evidence that the typo is plausible. Plausible misspellings are one of the reasons we have redirects. Take a look at Wikipedia:Redirect#What do we use redirects for?, Category:Redirects from misspellings and {{R from misspelling}} if you disagree. Bear in mind I have viewed the entire history of the redirect and am aware of what the user did. BigNate37_(T) 00:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per Wizardman. Xiner (talk, email) 23:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per Wizardman Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 21:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to subsidiary alliance. Note the lower case as opposed to a capital A in alliance at the current target. BigNate37_(T) 01:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted by Cbrown1023 (db-redirtypo). -- JLaTondre 14:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mispelled and miscategorized redirect. Probably won't be used by anyone. (Note that the redirect was originally to a speedy delete article, and that content was moved from Kayla (whale). -WarthogDemon 06:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as being a double redirect. --Wizardman 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 09:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Term doesn't appear on redirect page. Doesn't appear in any of the sources used on that page. No idea what it's supposed to stand for. --Onorem 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete. I checked, 4649 isn't internet slang at all. In fact it's not defined as anything. --Wizardman 17:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Defined at wiktionary. Probably should be added to the slang list, though I know the editors over there have gotten a bit anal about sourcing everything, so that might be why it's not already listed. --- RockMFR 18:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Most entries on List of Internet slang phrases are cited. 4649 does not appear on List of Internet slang phrases and could not be maintained on List of Internet slang phrases since there is no third party cite for "4649." The number probably is an advertisement for the website http://4649.com/ . The definition wiktionary:4649 should be deleted as well for these reasons. -- Jreferee 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 21:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 09:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user has been redirecting deleted articles on churches to the towns where they are located. There are more notable churches with the same name and all articles that link to this redirect are referring to different churches.--Tdl1060 17:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and remove incoming links or disambig. Redirect should not be kept. --- RockMFR 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not notable. Xiner (talk, email) 23:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 09:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted article recreated as a redirect. There are other churches with the same name of no less notability and some pages that link to this redirect that are referring to different churches.--Tdl1060 18:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and remove incoming links or disambig. Redirect should not be kept. --- RockMFR 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 23:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was delete. —Centrx→talk • 09:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, a "diktat" is not a "dictatorship" and has nothing more to do with a dictatorship than a common etymology. The "dictatorship" article does not even has a single mention of "diktat." Also, there are older versions of this page which are not redirects, but they too are undesirable because they are dicdefs. JianLi 22:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft redirect to wiktionary:Diktat. --- RockMFR 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP not a dictionary. Xiner (talk, email) 23:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a diktat is an order - while there are authoritarian connotations it's a stretch to redirect to dictatorship. --Duke of Duchess Street 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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