This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 23, 2009
The result of the discussion was delete.
Magioladitis (
talk)
11:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Subject's name is nowhere to be found in the target. Most of the time this has been a redirect, but early in its history it was a one-line "article" about a Weather Channel meteorologist; the "article" was quickly merged into
The Weather Channel, but nobody bothered to give the new redirect any context.
147.70.242.54 (
talk)
19:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - although Terri Smith worked at the Weather Channel (see
here), she left them in 1995 to work at other stations (including
WALB &
WXIA) and currently works at
KXNT. It would be far better for her name to appear as a redlink/search page to encourage creation of an article. Besides, a search page will yield more information on her than if she were to be retargeted to any of the sites I've linked. —
Zach425
talk/
contribs
04:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
- 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 (non admin close)
B.Wind (
talk)
04:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
reply
Delete - No talk about "Six Sigma Pricing" in
Six Sigma. And that's a non-notable term made up by a self-promoting author.
Damiens.rf
14:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Huh? (as creator of said redirect) I was under the impression redirects were cheap, and redirecting a "non-notable" neologism to its parent concept was a perfectly valid thing to do.
Nifboy (
talk)
16:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- The redirect needs to have something to give it context... and there's none here. If there were a mention of "Six Sigma Pricing" in the target article, then the redirect would be closer to valid (if not already there). The words "price" and "pricing" are absent from the
Six Sigma article.
147.70.242.54 (
talk)
16:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I never heard of a "valid" redirect, only
invalid ones. Hence "redirects are cheap."
Nifboy (
talk)
17:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Well, if they're not invalid...
147.70.242.54 (
talk)
19:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- And I'm not under the impression this redirect is invalid by those criteria.
Nifboy (
talk)
23:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- I'm still not convinced one way or another. If there is some context in the target article I'd be wholly in agreement with your point.
147.70.242.54 (
talk)
01:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - this appears to be an appropriate redirect: it seems to give partial information on the term (i.e., the methodology behind it), and there's the possibility that an article on the topic will meet notability criteria in the future. Of course, as IP mentioned, the keep would be much stronger if "Six Sigma Pricing" were mentioned in the article. —
Zach425
talk/
contribs
17:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - If you do a Google search, Six Sigma pricing is a real concept. It's based off the Six Sigma approach to system and process control. It would be helpful if the article noted this, but it's not a reason to delete the redirect. I also wish to know what proof Damiens.rf has that the creator of the redirect is engaged in self-promotion. Nothing in his edit history suggests a vested interest regarding Six Sigma. Such groundless accusations add nothing to the Wiki and I have duly noted this on his talk page.
141.214.37.134 (
talk)
19:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. A valid redirect, unless it falls under criterion "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject.", in which case an article should be substituted for the redirect rather than deleting the redirect. -
R. S. Shaw (
talk)
07:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
- 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 by
User:Orangemike, CSD G6 (housekeeping). Non admin close.
147.70.242.54 (
talk)
01:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
This is not a standard article title. We're redirected to an example of the villanelle. It's pretty useless.
JIMp
talk·
cont
14:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
- 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 by
User:Orangemike two times - CSD G10, then CSD G4}. Non admin close.
147.70.242.54 (
talk)
01:42, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
Unnecessary redirect; not a common misspelling, and the project should not be taking positions on subjects via use of judgmental pagenames.
Nathan
T 02:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Nathan
T
02:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.