From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 22, 2009

Swamp lizard

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( utc) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Seems like plenty of other things could be described as swamp lizards. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

St Brendan School

The result of the discussion was Retarget to St. Brendan School. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Presumably a school in the Bronx. Not a sensible redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom - the page was created as an article about the school and later turned into a redirect to The Bronx. However, the target article includes no information about the school, so there is no point directing searches for the school to the article about the borough. Also, deleting the redirect would make it appear as a red link and encourage creation of a reliably-sourced article. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Retarget per Bradjamesbrown and suggest speedy close. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 04:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oh, absolutely, I should have checked. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Chicago (Ill.)

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Nonsense or else something obscure. Also, there is an album named Chicago III. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Chicago's

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( utc) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I can't see the benefit of possessive noun redirects. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Seventy-two suburbs in search of a city

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The subtitle of a book about Los Angeles, not a nickname for Los Angeles itself. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The Garfieldian

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The name of an individual newspaper written in this cities—"apples to oranges" kind of redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

NY, NY, NY

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( utc) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Improbable search term—a "novel synonym". — The Man in Question (in question) 22:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Penix

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( utc) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty sure this a joke, even if it's not I can not see anyone using therm "penix" in a search. I think we should also add Pnix to the discussion created at the same time by the same user. Ridernyc ( talk) 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  1. The content of the previous entries is unfounded. Penix and Pnix are simply abbreviations of Phoenix which may be used in internet chatting, and should be kept, as they are both recognized by Google as abbreviations of Phoenix. Words such as " pwn" are on Wikipedia.
  2. Amanda Penix was Miss Oklahoma Teen USA in 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax 0677 ( talkcontribs)
Comment. 1. A google search for "penix" found the first result containing the word "phoenix" at number 75, and that is for [5] whose current content is entirely "lets get it on?". I could not find any other in the first 100, at which point I stopped. So if people in Phoenix write it, they keep quiet about it. If "pnix" is an abbreviation for Phoenix, then so what? The redirect isn't for "pnix". 2. If she is considered notable enough to have an article, then we can redirect to her. The same surname lists frequently on the same search, and presumably none of them yet have articles here. Si Trew ( talk) 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Energy in Illinois ‎

The result of the discussion was retarget Energy in Illinois to Illinois#Energy and delete Climate change in Illinois. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 05:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete. Why these should be created as a redirect to Illinois is a mystery to me. If Illinois had sections about it, it might be plausible. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_22#Energy_in_Illinois. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Liam Adams

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

This redirect should be deleted for the following reasons: Liam Adams isn't mentioned in the article to which this subject is being redirected; he isn't likely to be mentioned, discussed, or included in said article in the near future; and the redirect has seemingly only been created so that a living person appears in the "fugitives" categories added on 19 December. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Funny, PatGallacher provides no rationale for keeping, so pull the other one, Simon. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 14:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I didn't mean he said keep. I used his argument as a rationale for keeping. Si Trew ( talk) 23:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep until such time as the subject has his own article. Liam Adams and his connection to Gerry Adams is seeing widespread media attention in Ireland and the UK at the moment. Although some people seem intent on removing any mention of the alleged abuse of his daughter by Liam Adams, his brother Gerry Adams' knowledge of the allegation and appeal for his brother to turn himself in, and his subsequent claim that Gerry Adams, Sr was abusive to some of his children, the media reaction is likely to see it being included on the Gerry Adams page. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No, you are intent on seeing it included, whether it is relevant or not. But, the redirect makes no sense as Liam is not mentioned in the article and is not relevant. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 03:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Bastun is in fact arguing to delete per WP:REDIRECT, which he should really have read before commenting. 2 lines of K 303 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
As a new editor here, I find that harsh. Really one should AGF. I haven't read much of WP:REDIRECT either. I read MOS when it suits me, and was involved with it a bit, but decided that a style guide that is constantly changing under your feet is about as much use as a snake in an arse kicking competition, so I just try to write good English instead. And at WP:CONVERT it is the same, there is the fellow who acutally works to make it better, and if I suggest missing units etc. he puts them in, or kindly tells me they are there already, and seventeen thousand other people complain about what is a good template. You cannot, must not, expect everyone to know the rules. I come here because I was worried about a redirect, I spend most of my time actually editing stuff and making Wikipedia better, I DO NOT WANT to be slapped around the head with rules, and I will bet you all lombard-street to a china orange, you didn't obey the rules either. Cos first rule is break all rules. 23:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Once again, Gallacher provides no rationale for keeping. So, can you provide a reason, please? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Gallacher's reason? The issue is unresolved. — The Man in Question (in question) 16:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:REDIRECT. If there's going to be a Liam Adams article it shouldn't be a redirect at present, as redlinks encourage people to create article while redirects don't. That's what it says in black and white. If, and only if, there's no consensus for an article on Liam Adams and there's consensus for a section including Liam Adams to the Gerry Adams article, then the redirect can always be recreated. At present, there's no details about Liam Adams in the article, so the redirect makes no sense. 2 lines of K 303 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
It's debatable whether Liam Adams should have his own article, but I think this will be decided by more important factors than whether he is a redirect or a red link. At present the consensus seems to be against it, but if his case gets much more publicity this may change. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Also User One Night In Hackney appears to be arguing for deletion on the grounds of WP:Redirect 4.1 point 9. This is legitimate grounds for deletion under some circumstances, but implies that Liam Adams merits his own article. I am not violently opposed to this view, but is that what some people are arguing? PatGallacher ( talk) 00:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The Gerry Adams article has now been locked until 28 December while this content dispute is resolved. Let's give this redirect the benefit of the doubt until then. PatGallacher ( talk) 17:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 22

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 22, 2009

Swamp lizard

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( utc) 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Seems like plenty of other things could be described as swamp lizards. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

St Brendan School

The result of the discussion was Retarget to St. Brendan School. Non-admin closure. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Presumably a school in the Bronx. Not a sensible redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 23:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete per nom - the page was created as an article about the school and later turned into a redirect to The Bronx. However, the target article includes no information about the school, so there is no point directing searches for the school to the article about the borough. Also, deleting the redirect would make it appear as a red link and encourage creation of a reliably-sourced article. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 03:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Retarget per Bradjamesbrown and suggest speedy close. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 04:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Oh, absolutely, I should have checked. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Chicago (Ill.)

The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. — The Man in Question (in question) 05:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Nonsense or else something obscure. Also, there is an album named Chicago III. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Chicago's

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( utc) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I can't see the benefit of possessive noun redirects. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Seventy-two suburbs in search of a city

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The subtitle of a book about Los Angeles, not a nickname for Los Angeles itself. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:46, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

The Garfieldian

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

The name of an individual newspaper written in this cities—"apples to oranges" kind of redirect. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:40, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

NY, NY, NY

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( utc) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Improbable search term—a "novel synonym". — The Man in Question (in question) 22:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Penix

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory ( utc) 20:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm pretty sure this a joke, even if it's not I can not see anyone using therm "penix" in a search. I think we should also add Pnix to the discussion created at the same time by the same user. Ridernyc ( talk) 06:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

  1. The content of the previous entries is unfounded. Penix and Pnix are simply abbreviations of Phoenix which may be used in internet chatting, and should be kept, as they are both recognized by Google as abbreviations of Phoenix. Words such as " pwn" are on Wikipedia.
  2. Amanda Penix was Miss Oklahoma Teen USA in 1997. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jax 0677 ( talkcontribs)
Comment. 1. A google search for "penix" found the first result containing the word "phoenix" at number 75, and that is for [5] whose current content is entirely "lets get it on?". I could not find any other in the first 100, at which point I stopped. So if people in Phoenix write it, they keep quiet about it. If "pnix" is an abbreviation for Phoenix, then so what? The redirect isn't for "pnix". 2. If she is considered notable enough to have an article, then we can redirect to her. The same surname lists frequently on the same search, and presumably none of them yet have articles here. Si Trew ( talk) 23:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Energy in Illinois ‎

The result of the discussion was retarget Energy in Illinois to Illinois#Energy and delete Climate change in Illinois. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 05:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete. Why these should be created as a redirect to Illinois is a mystery to me. If Illinois had sections about it, it might be plausible. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_22#Energy_in_Illinois. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

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

Liam Adams

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC) reply

This redirect should be deleted for the following reasons: Liam Adams isn't mentioned in the article to which this subject is being redirected; he isn't likely to be mentioned, discussed, or included in said article in the near future; and the redirect has seemingly only been created so that a living person appears in the "fugitives" categories added on 19 December. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 02:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Funny, PatGallacher provides no rationale for keeping, so pull the other one, Simon. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 14:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I didn't mean he said keep. I used his argument as a rationale for keeping. Si Trew ( talk) 23:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep until such time as the subject has his own article. Liam Adams and his connection to Gerry Adams is seeing widespread media attention in Ireland and the UK at the moment. Although some people seem intent on removing any mention of the alleged abuse of his daughter by Liam Adams, his brother Gerry Adams' knowledge of the allegation and appeal for his brother to turn himself in, and his subsequent claim that Gerry Adams, Sr was abusive to some of his children, the media reaction is likely to see it being included on the Gerry Adams page. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 01:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
No, you are intent on seeing it included, whether it is relevant or not. But, the redirect makes no sense as Liam is not mentioned in the article and is not relevant. --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 03:03, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Bastun is in fact arguing to delete per WP:REDIRECT, which he should really have read before commenting. 2 lines of K 303 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
As a new editor here, I find that harsh. Really one should AGF. I haven't read much of WP:REDIRECT either. I read MOS when it suits me, and was involved with it a bit, but decided that a style guide that is constantly changing under your feet is about as much use as a snake in an arse kicking competition, so I just try to write good English instead. And at WP:CONVERT it is the same, there is the fellow who acutally works to make it better, and if I suggest missing units etc. he puts them in, or kindly tells me they are there already, and seventeen thousand other people complain about what is a good template. You cannot, must not, expect everyone to know the rules. I come here because I was worried about a redirect, I spend most of my time actually editing stuff and making Wikipedia better, I DO NOT WANT to be slapped around the head with rules, and I will bet you all lombard-street to a china orange, you didn't obey the rules either. Cos first rule is break all rules. 23:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Once again, Gallacher provides no rationale for keeping. So, can you provide a reason, please? --- RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive' 15:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Gallacher's reason? The issue is unresolved. — The Man in Question (in question) 16:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:REDIRECT. If there's going to be a Liam Adams article it shouldn't be a redirect at present, as redlinks encourage people to create article while redirects don't. That's what it says in black and white. If, and only if, there's no consensus for an article on Liam Adams and there's consensus for a section including Liam Adams to the Gerry Adams article, then the redirect can always be recreated. At present, there's no details about Liam Adams in the article, so the redirect makes no sense. 2 lines of K 303 15:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
It's debatable whether Liam Adams should have his own article, but I think this will be decided by more important factors than whether he is a redirect or a red link. At present the consensus seems to be against it, but if his case gets much more publicity this may change. PatGallacher ( talk) 16:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Also User One Night In Hackney appears to be arguing for deletion on the grounds of WP:Redirect 4.1 point 9. This is legitimate grounds for deletion under some circumstances, but implies that Liam Adams merits his own article. I am not violently opposed to this view, but is that what some people are arguing? PatGallacher ( talk) 00:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The Gerry Adams article has now been locked until 28 December while this content dispute is resolved. Let's give this redirect the benefit of the doubt until then. PatGallacher ( talk) 17:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook