Login
Login

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 1#3.1416

{{rfd log header|2012|March 31|2012|April 2}}

=April 1=

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 1, 2012

==<span id="Template:Anchor for redirect">Template:Anchor for redirect</span>==

: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 keep. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why this was created. I think anchor is a well known template and typing more offers nothing. Magioladitis (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Weak keep unless there are issues with bots (not) recognising this. I think less experienced editors might delete {{tl|anchor}} due to its apparent lack of effects, so using {{tl|anchor for redirect}} to clarify its purpose in those sorts of situations might be appropriate. – hysteria18 (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

==<span id="Template:Naval Air Station">Template:Naval Air Station</span>==

: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 delete. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Unused and it doesn't follow the {{tl|Infobox xxxxx}} scheme. Magioladitis (talk) 16:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

: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 Kept. The Helpful One 20:51, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

==<span id="Take My Wife, Please">Take My Wife, Please</span>==

{{humor}}

I don't want your wife. She don't give me no respect —PBP89 (Chat)(WP Edits: 999,999,999) 15:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

==<span id="Pulverized cow anus">Pulverized cow anus</span>==

: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 speedily deleted (twice) per WP:CSD#G10 (Attack pages) by Horologium. Thryduulf (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete, along with Sanitized cow anus, as there are no reliable sources using this, and it's an extremely unlikely search term for the main article. First Light (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

==<span id="Obamacare">Obamacare</span>==

: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 Keep. It might not snow on April Fools' Day normally, but it sure can on Wikipedia. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Fails WP:NPOV. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 01:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. Seems fine under WP:REDIR#Neutrality_of_redirects.  -- Austin512 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Redirects from POV titles to non-POV articles are a preferred solution. Rossami (talk) 03:47, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Hardly even counts as a POV redirect anymore, what with so many supporters of the law (including the Obama campaign itself) having started using term. It's just a redirect from the common nickname to the official name of the law. — Red XIV (talk) 03:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment is this an April Fool's nomination? 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep if it isn't an April Fool's nomination. Though, per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be moved to this name instead. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Common if somewhat loaded term. Highly plausible search term that should point to the correct article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. The current redirect is optimal. The search term is common ([http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Obamacare 19226 views] in the past 30 days) and the target article is where the vast majority of searchers would expect to land. Gobōnobo + c 15:55, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Rossami and Redxiv. --Saforrest (talk) 12:56, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is the expected landing. If there's a POV issue, it should be discussed on the target page. SeanAhern (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

==<span id="3.1416">3.1416</span>==

: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 keep. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Another pi redirect. I thought we didn't want these? Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 01:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep per reply below. Rossami (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment is this an April Fool's nomination? 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep if it isn't an April Fool's nomination. This is a reasonable length for pi. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Delete pi is 3.14159-. Do we need a redirect which is just a rounded number? ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 23:08, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment your value of pi is wrong if you're stating it is an exact measure. Pi is an unending decimal, so your value is also rounded. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

==<span id="3.141592653589">3.141592653589</span>==

: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 Keep. Thryduulf (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No, this is a serious RfD. This totally isn't because it's April 1. Six Sided Pun Vows (talk | contribs | former account) 01:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  • The consensus to date has been that we definitely do not want articles at these titles (per AfDs 1, 2, 3 and so on). The consensus has also been clear that we definitely don't want incorrect numbers as redirects (unless they are notable approximations such as 22/7). Some excessively long redirects have been discussed in prior RfDs (Jun 2008 and Jun 2011) with mixed results. I find the arguments in the 2008 discussion more compelling. (Full disclosure: I participated in that discussion.) Users are going to keep trying to create these pages no matter what we do. Redirects preempt the unwanted content reasonably well (and salting is overkill). The redirects themselves are harmless. They may not be especially helpful but once created, there is little point in deleting them. So, keep all. The 2011 decision was, in my opinion, in error. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

==<span id="Michel Aoun/Archive1">Michel Aoun/Archive1</span>==

: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 keep. Thryduulf (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No internal links, no chance of anybody searching for this, any external links are unlikely to be intended for this target. – hysteria18 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  • This appears to be a placeholder page created to prevent people from attempting to delete Talk:Michel Aoun/Archive1 under CSD#G8 (Pages dependent on a non-existent page). Talk page archives are supposed to be exempt from that criterion but there was a period when the rule was being rather widely misapplied so these sorts of preemptive page creations were used to procedurally block the abuse. The CSD criterion has since been rewritten to be more clear about the exemption.
    While I agree that there is little point to the redirect, there is even less point to deleting it. It's not harmful or in the way of anything. Ignore it and move on. Tag them with {{tl|unprintworthy}} if you must but redirects like this (and I suspect there are many) are not worth the effort to delete. Rossami (talk) 03:45, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment people are still deleting subpages with CSD-G8. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

==<span id="Michel Aerts">Michel Aerts</span>==

: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 keep. Thryduulf (talk) 21:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Misleading: no indication he's known by this name. – hysteria18 (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep. Documents a page move from May 2005 (which, incidentally, was before the software was changed to automatically record moves in the history). The move was the result of a VfD discussion. While the original title was incorrect, it was a plausible mistransliteration of a foreign-language name. It is not obviously in the way of other content and has not created any noticeable confusion in the almost 7 years since the move. The potential for inbound links to this old title is non-trivial and link rot should be avoided whenever possible. Note: Redirects are explicitly not endorsements of a title. (If they were, we'd have to delete all our redirects from misspellings and that would be a huge disservice to our readers.) Tag with {{tl|unprintworthy}} but keep harmless redirects like this. Rossami (talk) 03:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep. Thanks for the notification of the RFD on my talkpage. This was created as a routine matter following an old VFD (now AFD) dicussion, and I forgot that I had ever made this one. The redirect from a semi-plausible misspelling is not essential, and deletion won't break Wikipedia, but on balance the redirect is not causing any harm or confusion and I agree with Rossami's argument on maintaining the page history. I also believe that it is advantageous that the link in the archived VFD discussion remain active. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:57, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.