Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 March 27

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#SOAPBOX. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:57, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This Wikipedia redirect implies that COI editing leads to the production of propaganda, which is not always true. Seems like an easy delete, only two links, one from a talk page archive and another from an IP's talk page that hasn't been edited since May 2008.Ipatrol (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it seems to imply that propaganda production is a form of conflict of interest. 76.66.193.69 (talk) 06:10, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• So re-target it to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. No deletion required. Uncle G (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 20:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-target Per Uncle G and Tempo Beeblebrox (talk) 21:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#SOAPBOX, which is where Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox redirects. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Re-targeted to Man cave. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page redirects to the DIY network page, and "Man Cave" isn't mentioned or even alluded to in the entire article. Either delete this page or turn it into its own article. Cssiitcic (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as a man cave is a generic term with much wider application than a particular TV channel. It really requires its own article. PaulJones (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not redirect it to the existing article, at man cave? Uncle G (talk) 12:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to man cave. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 13:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Odd. I did not come across Man cave when I was looking for a suitable target. Oh well. Retarget. PaulJones (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy Deleted (non admin close) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leftover from a page move. Even if the article it redirects to isn't deleted, this is an unlikely search term with the quotes around it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• R3 Implausible term, and recently created so it seems like the best route to go. Tavix (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Self evident R3 Speedy and done so by me. Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Mixed. Nature Walks deleted as too generic. Mark Fraser Nature deleted as an unlikely search term. The remainder kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected as a temporary measure against creation of multiple copies of page Nature Walks with Mark Fraser. Please also consider Mark Clay Fraser, Mark Fraser Nature, Nature Walks with Mark and NatureWalks. It looks like author is trying to do article stuffing (like keyword stuffing on web pages). Would appreciate more experienced editors to have a look into the matter. Thanks. MLauba (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep These are all plausible search terms. Their purpose is to help readers find the content they are looking for. This isn't Google, the article won't move up in search engine results as a result of this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please note that I was the one who changed the duplicate articles under the above headers into redirects in the first place. MLauba (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I am the author, and frankly new to Wikipedia. As Beeblebrox correctly points out, It was simply an attempt to help viewers find the page nothing more then that. While attempting to utilize the search item to the left of the screen, I see that the slightest deviation makes the search engine fail to retrieve the article, so I was attempting to remedy that. I am now rather concerned as I see the banner "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject" which is somewhat disturbing as its sounds negative about such a positive article. Please either remove the banner and or the copied articles as soon as possible.
  Thank you and best regards
• Comment You may want to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia first, but I'd suggest you opt for the following (assuming you are in no way connected to Mark Fraser or Nature Walks, which your username appears to imply, what caused the banner to appear): either separate the show from Mark Fraser, each with his own article, assuming you can actually provide enough independent third-party sources so that each article can stand on its own. Alternatively, assuming you can only source one properly, make it a proper article centered on either the show or the host, then redirect the other to it. If you cannot find sufficient independent, reliable third-party coverage for either, the article will eventually get challenged and deleted. Hope that helps, if you need more assistance, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. MLauba (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• retarget Nature Walks to Trail, itself the target for Nature trail. PaulJones (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mark Fraser Nature (as a semi-random mutation of the title) but keep the rest as plausible search terms for the target article. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issues, unlikely search term. *** Crotalus *** 13:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete kinda funny, but that's about it. Not a likely search term, to be sure. BLP and NPOV problems too. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Screaming" seems to be well-sourced in the article, but "crazy" is a potential BLP problem, and in any case this isn't a likely term for searching or linking. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete Delete as soon as possible, no non-deletion links, no views, was the result of a move from a bad title, just delete.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Adding to the pile. Who would search for that? -Brougham~96 03:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first version of the article (q.v.) told us, without sources of course, that this is what residents of the city informally call the subject. I'd like to see sources that prove that, before writing it anywhere. So, too, would the other editors who removed it from the article in April 2007. The old title was strongly objected to at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juan, crazy screaming guy, too. Uncle G (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball Delete - Definitely an implausible search term. ƒingers^on_Roids 00:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:BLP. The redirect has no useful incoming links and the pagemove history is preserved here. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Speedy-deleted by User:I'm Spartacus! (NAC). TheAE talk/sign 00:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't appear to be useful, not a common typo or anything. TheAE talk/sign 04:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, looks like it was used back in July 2007 to make a page move. It has been unused since, so there is no reason keeping it around. Tavix (talk) 04:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an implausible redirect. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 14:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as per nom. PaulJones (talk) 22:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete As per G6Was the result of a maintinence operation.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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