Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 19, 2010

Tara Whelan[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 keep. — ξxplicit 01:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be a backdoor for an article on a bombing victim of yesteryear. She is, alas, not notable. There should be nothing here about her other than footnoted articles with no links. Student7 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC) Student7 (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - since she is mentioned in the target a redirect is just fine. Being nn is no bar to the creation of a redirect; indeed if she were notable then she would merit her own article. It is acceptable to redirect victims to the main incident page provided there is some sourced content. I would add that since this was formerly an article outright deletion is off the agenda because of GFDL implications and keeping the redirect is the simplest way of meeting our GFDL obligations. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed - the target is dependent on the redirect for attribution purposes [1](see AFD decision). I'm not sure what the old revisions of the redirect or the notability of the subject in the page name has to do with the redirect, which is strictly a navigational aid. The redirect seems to be in light use, and redirects are cheap, so I don't see a particular reason to delete it. –xenotalk 22:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would add that when an AFD has decided to redirect rather than delete an article it is not good practice for the decision to be overturned at RFD. Better to challenge it at DRV if the decision is considered incorrect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—mentioned in target article, no reason to delete. –Grondemar 04:20, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no compelling reason to delete presented. –xenotalk 15:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: not notable enough for an article perhaps, but if she's mentioned in the target and it's a plausible redirect, I see no reason to delete, especially if the result of a recent AfD created this redirect. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Huasco[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 belongs at Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article at Huasco, Chile (the city and commune) should reside at Huasco -- sorry if I did this backward -- so it'll be the main article and the first thing to pop up when searching for "Huasco". Hope this serves to clear up any confusion. Ruodyssey (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move Huasco, Chile, this is not the place to ask. Instead, you should follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves to find consensus on this. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Fuck man[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 delete. Meets deletion criteria 8 and possibly 3. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Created with this is mind from the article .. the name was changed from Puck Man to Pac-Man, as it was thought that vandals would be likely to change the P in "puck" to an F... As I know this nickname didn't take off at all and do one is going to come here searching for Fuck man wanting to find the Pac Man article. I did a google search for Fuck man and I didn't find our redirect or anything about pac man, we don't need a fuck man redirect and no-one will come looking for it imo either. The guy that created it was and is a indef blocked sock, his edit history seems to show an obsession with fuck Off2riorob (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: The motivations of the creator aren't really relevant here, this discussion is about the value of the redirect. The Pac-Man article mentions that the creators changed the name from Puck-man because they were concerned that it would become known as "Fuck-man"; if it's worthy of such mention in the article, I see no reason why it shouldn't also be worthy of a redirect; redirects are cheap after all. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The motivations of the creator are imo relevant, he was the one that created it and his obsession; with such issues is perhaps the only reason it was created . the alleged nickname never caught on , is not used and is likely never searched for. Off2riorob (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleting redirects is cheap, too. SwarmTalk 04:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This particular redirect was nominated in 2006 but withdrawn; whereas a similar redirect from Fuckman was deleted in 2008 after a full discussion. I'd suggest that we be consistent in application, taking direction from the result of this discussion. –xenotalk 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree; I would propose that Fuckman be added to the nomination, and that Fuckman be created if the result of this RfD is to keep (and obviously no further action if it's delete). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is discussed in the article, and the story behind it is reasonably well-known, so variants of "fuck man" are reasonably foreseeable search terms for the target. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you got some diffs that assert people refer to this pac man as fuck man? Off2riorob (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if it didn't catch on, I think the fact that the developers changed the name because of fears it might, and that this was deemed worthy of being in the article, justifies the redirect. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I suppose. Unless there is a more notable fuck man out there.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The name never took off, thanks to the historical name change. --Jtalledo (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is not mentioned in the target so it is simply confusing. Some people remembering something about the history of the target is not enough; if its not notable enough for a sourced reference it doesn't need a redirect. The most common use of the phrase is as an expletive and it is used, as such, in various pages for example Another Perfect Day and Like a Boss. At a pinch it could be disambiguated. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mentioned in the target in the "development" section (though some tact was applied to avoid using the name fuckman directly, which may or may not have been appropriate). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone following the link is not likely to find it without knowing where to look. I simply don't see this as the primary use. However, as I say above, I have no objection to a disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not really convinced there's anything to disambiguate here. The examples you provided are just pages which include quotes of individuals saying "fuck, man"; that doesn't strike me as a logical disambiguation. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Come on, "fuck man" is not a plausible search term for Pac-Man. Not in the least. Yes, it's worth a mention in the article, but as a redirect it serves no purpose. The nominator of fuckman was entirely correct with the common sense rationale of "nobody calls pac-man fuckman". Nobody who is looking for the article on Pac-Man is going to search "fuck man". The redirect doesn't serve a purpose and should be deleted. SwarmTalk 04:24, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Implausible search term tangentially mentioned in target article. Uncle Dick (talk) 05:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a minor part of the history that the average person is simply not aware of. Nowhere near a related search term, and Pack-Man has more of a chance of being searched for by accident than Fuck Man does on purpose. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term appears as a anecdote in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Not likeley to come up as a real search term Hasteur (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't it's inclusion in pop culture make it more likely to be searched? –xenotalk 14:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm thinking not. The anecdote is 3 or 4 chain links long to get from Fuck man to PacMan. People are more likeley to search for FukMan or PukMan rather than this version. Hasteur (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create fuckman Reason 1) Redirects are cheap and it is in the article at some point. Reason 2) I'm way too busy to find an WP:RS for this, but I remember unauthorized recreations for home consoles and early 8 bit computers that were risqué (and stupid) clones of pac-man called various forms of fuckman. Fuckman is not documented here, but you can see the genre, including scenes from obscene Space Invaders and Boot Hill (arcade game) knockoffs in a video documentary called "Atari Porn" made by the Angry Video Game Nerd. While these obscene knockoffs are not documented in the target article it doesn't hurt to send readers somewhere if they type it into the search box. If somebody were to create 8 bit era obscene video game clones we could certainly redirect there instead but this is fine for now. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
  • Retarget to Pac-man#Development. I think this redirect should be kept, but pointed at the specific section in the article that mentions it. –Grondemar 23:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Swarm and Marty: this is just not a plausible search term for the redirect target. 28bytes (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Main Page/HelpBox[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 Delete. Lenticel (talk) 02:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Never used (in real terms), not a plausible search term, no links, no history. Just silly. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - we won't get any help from the creator who hasn't been around for a couple of years. Not only is this not used but it is confusing since a searcher will expect something different to a link to the Main Page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary. –xenotalk 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—not useful in any way. –Grondemar 04:22, 20 August 2010 (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/2010_August_19&oldid=1145839160"