Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 22[edit]

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

Complexity classses P and NP[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_Zero 08:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was tagged for speedy as a recently created typo redirect, but this article has existed since 2001, and had not been edited for two years before speedy tagging. Still, Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Weak keep as a useful and likely search item: the phrase is in bold on the first line of the lede. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the reason for the speedy tagging is that it has three S's in "classses". -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that makes it a bit less likely and useful - I didn't see it the first time. I'm "weakening" my recommendation. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The spelling error makes it almost completely useless as a redirect, which is why I nominated it for speedy. I know it's not recent, but it is an implausible spelling error and --Robin (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete -- Not a likely search term, but not a huge cost either. It gets a little bit of traffic, in any case. —mako๛ 04:44, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - it gets an average of ~12 hits per month, and it certainly seems like a feasible typo. —Zach425 talk/contribs 12:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to correct spelling and keep. On the surface, this redirect appears plausible due to its containing phrases a person beginning to learn about computational complexity theory is likely to see or hear but not fully understand. Problems with misspelling can be corrected by a simple move to the correct spelling (preferably without leaving a redirect from the misspelled version). --Allen3 talk 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Since a redirect already exists at Complexity classes P and NP, there isn't really much benefit of moving this redirect there, is there? Jafeluv (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unpleasant typo and useless as a search item. Traffic maybe coming from Search box. Correctly spelled redirect exists. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Magioladitis. Supposition regarding traffic from search box seems sound. "complexity c" yields a list of 6 items, with this one at the bottom, just below its correctly spelled sibling; it's often easier to click on the last item in a list than on the next-to-last. -- ToET 13:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hitler's testicles[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep, e.g. not deleted. Retargeting may be performed, or not, as a normal editorial action. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - highly unlikely search term, created as a joke in response to a CFD for Category:Fictional balls. Otto4711 (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No real objection (creator). Yes, it was mostly a joke. But OK, OK—it can be deleted if we like. However, I actually did search for this term when I was looking for the section that is redirected to. Hitler's Testicle was already a redirect to the same article. The joke did appear to be taken too far when someone actually added it to the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - although this title doesn't get many hits, the singular version (Hitler's testicle) gets quite a bit of traffic. Since the redirect in question is not really doing any harm, I see no compelling reason to delete it (even if it was created as a joke). —Zach425 talk/contribs 23:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The story regarding Hitler's genitalia (genitalium?) is frequently researched. It is very likely that someone would be looking for "Hitler's testicle" or "Hitler's testicles". Since there seems to be no controversy about the singular, we should also keep the plural as a logical redirect. B.Wind (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As per B.Wind above. Inquiring minds apparently want to know about Hitler's and his testicles. This redirect seems likely to send them to encyclopedic information on the topic and I don't see any real justification for deleting it. Redirects don't need to be totally serious, just useful at getting people to the information they are looking for. This qualifies. —mako๛ 04:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Adolf Hitler's medical health#Monorchism The one testicle aspect of Hitler is oft-quoted, whether true or not, and I think this is a more suitable page for the, especially given the hatnote. That being said, what's not serious about the redirect? It's exactly what an article on the topic would be called if we had one. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs)
  • Comment: I moved Hitler's Testicle to Hitler's testicle earlier to correct the capitalization, then tagged the former with CSD G6. This was rejected, as there's "nothing wrong with redirects from alternate capitalization." Any thoughts on this? Should I bring it to RfD/add it to this discussion or just leave it alone? —Zach425 talk/contribs 07:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's no big deal. Alternate capitalisations are kept all the time unless they have the potential for confusion. If we had a Hitler's Testicles redirect, it would also be kept or deleted simultaneous with Hitler's testicles, too. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the notability of the phrase, this is the correct redirect. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Adolf Hitler's medical health#Monorchism per Amory. It's a possible search term, and since we have a section in an article discussing the issue, it's better to redirect to that one. Jafeluv (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Curt Shitting[edit]

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 Speedy Delete carried out by User:KillerChihuahua. (non-admin close) —mako๛ 20:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as intentionally offensive. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 19:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Normal cubic metre[edit]

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 retarget to SCFM (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 04:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as both obscure and confusing. No RS found relates "standard" to "normal" conditions. Let article editors be clear instead. LeadSongDog come howl 17:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- This gets a steady trickle of traffic. Because this confusion appears to be widespread, he nominator's point should be made in the text of the target article. Deleting this redirect will not serve to help any confused people. —mako๛ 20:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to SCFM, which at least mentions the term. Jafeluv (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Jafeluv and embolden the term in that lead. -- ToET 01:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_22&oldid=1144721623"