November 10

Creationism in a cheap lab coat

• Creationism in a cheap lab coat →Intelligent design (links to redirect) (stats) 

Unhelpful redirect from apparent jargon--see[1] DGG ( talk)23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem to get much traffic, amusing though it is, I don't think it's a solid search term.   pablo_hablo.09:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Tikiwont (talk)16:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Bayer designations (II)

• D Aurigae →Delta Aurigae
• L Aurigae →Lambda Aurigae
• M Aurigae →Mu Aurigae
• N Aurigae →Nu Aurigae
• M Arietis →Mu Arietis
• N Arietis →Nu Arietis
• O ArietisO Arietis →Omicron Arietis
• P Arietis →Pi Arietis
• A Arae →Alpha Arae
• B Arae →Beta Arae
• D Arae →Delta Arae
• E Arae →Eta Arae
• G Arae →Gamma Arae
• A AquilaeA Aquilae →Altair (= α Aquilae = α Aql)
• A AqlA Aql →Altair (= α Aquilae = α Aql)
• K AquilaeK Aquilae →Kappa Aquilae
• M Aquilae →Mu Aquilae
• N Aquilae →Nu Aquilae

These redirects are all from aBayer designation of a star with a Roman letter to the corresponding Bayer designation with a Greek letter (a → α, b → β, etc.) Unfortunately, Greek and Roman letters are not interchangeable inside Bayer designations. In the list above, although the Greek-lettered designations specify stars, the Roman-lettered designations do not—they are meaningless. (Two exceptions are A and K Aquilae, above; some sources give A Aquilae as a designation for28 Aquilae (HD 181333) and/or k Aquilae as a designation for37 Aquilae (HD 184492.) These usages are not universal though, and in any case, the redirects currently present are definitely wrong.)

These redirects should therefore bedeleted. SeeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 16,Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 4, and#Incorrect Bayer designations below for previous discussion on similar redirects.Spacepotato (talk)22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per spacepotato's reasoning.65.94.252.195 (talk)05:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiroshima terrorist attack

• Hiroshima terrorist attack →Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (links to redirect) (stats) 

PerWP:R#DELETE, this redirect is "a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" and as such "is unlikely to be useful." AGoogle search reveals just 81 hits on the phrase "Hiroshima terrorist attack", not all of which are even relevant. In short it is incredibly unlikely that anyone will type this phrase into the search bar in an effort to find the articleAtomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. To top it off, the redirect wascreated in a ratherpointy manner in response to a currentRfD discussion (seehere andhere for relevant info). Unneeded, and we ought not encourage the creation of these kind of redirects.Bigtimepeace|talk |contribs20:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT is about disrupting, not improving, Wikipedia. The previous discussion identified a missing redirect, which I rectified by creating it. It's an absolutely POV phrase referring to the target of the redirect. The nominator's Google search includes quotes around the entire phrase; if you change it tothis you get 62,600 ghits.

Specific RS citations supporting this phrase (either advocating or refuting it) may includeMoscow Top News,Counterpunch,Council for Foreign Relations,Economic and Political Weekly,San Diego Business Journal,The Journal of Conflict Resolution, andForeign Policy magazine, for some starters.Jclemens (talk)21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are for exact phrases, not for google searches using one word and two words grouped together via quotation. My google search shows that the prevalence of the exact phrase "Hiroshima terrorist attack" is extremely low, which suggests it's an unlikely search by a reader (honestly--do you believe a reader is going to typethat exact phrase?). Is there a literature arguing that the atomic bombings of Japan by the U.S. should be viewed as an act of (state) terrorism? Absolutely, and I'm actually familiar with it, and have argued for some discussion of this literature in adifferent article (not incidentally, if we really wanted this redirect it should gohere where this issue is actually discussed). But it isextremely unlikely that "Hiroshima terrorist attack" is a useful redirect. Finally, if Jclemens is really looking to facilitate better searching here, he or she presumably would have created redirects likeHiroshima and Nagasaki terrorist attack,Nagasaki terrorist attack,American terrorist attack on Japan, etc. Yet the only redirect created was one referenced as non-existent in a contentious RfD (incidentally "previous discussion identified a missing redirect" rather stretches credulity as a description of the interaction that led to the redirect being created). So, yes, I think it was created in significant part to make a point, namely the point that it's okay to create as many non-NPOV redirects as we want. That does not mean it's a good idea, and Jclemens does not convince me the redirect is remotely useful or needed as a search option. I'll leave this discussion there as this is silly enough as it is. --Bigtimepeace|talk |contribs22:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is that this redirect is useful, then the additional ones you proposed(?) seem reasonable to me. Knowing full well that this would likely become a test case, I didn't see any point in creating every potentially useful NPOV redirect related to the topic in question.That would have more accurately been construed as slightly disruptive, since we can have the same conversation with one redirect or four. I appreciate your suggestion of a better redirect target, and would welcome such a modification to the redirect under discussion, even while this discussion is ongoing.Jclemens (talk)22:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Yes,WP:POINT is the disruption of the Wikipedia, which is exactly what Jclemens is doing here, as this stems from an intentional redlink inthis RfD. It was a redlink made by another user to highlight an absurdity in the Ft. Hood discussions. The idea of the Hiroshima bombing being an act of terrorism is so far out of the mainstream its not even funny. Hell, it doesn't even qualify as a fringe theory, it si so far ot there. Implausible, disruptive redirect.Tarc (talk)23:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cease accusations of bad faith and actually refute the RS I listed above.WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid reason to delete a redirect, even though I can empathize with the sentiment in this case: I don't hold the view that it's terrorism either, but plenty of sources do.Jclemens (talk)05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop acting in bad faith and you will no longer be accused of it. As for sources....left-wing websites, Soviet-era propaganda, and CAIR are hardly what one would describe as reliable, non-partisan sources.Tarc (talk)12:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Again with the ABF. Please stop focusing on me and pay attention to the redirect under discussion. You've just now made an argument that POV sources use this term. If that's what you really mean, then the debate is over. "Non-partisan" is not a requirement for redirects. Please seeWP:R#Neutrality of redirects.Jclemens (talk)17:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is no "assumption" when it is so obvious. As for the POV angle, you are misinterpreting what I said, as I have made no argument that this redirect should be deleted on NPOV grounds. You created this redirect to make a point, so yes, thisis all about you; that is plain to all involved here. You then went and dug up sources to justify that "Hiroshima as an act of terrorism" is common enough justify this as a plausible search term, sources which I pointed out have POV issues and were thus unreliable for establishing any such thing.Tarc (talk)20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • So by your logic even though redirects don't have to be NPOV, they have to be POV terms sourced from NPOV sources? That simply doesn't make sense and is not supported byWP:R.Jclemens (talk)22:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It certainly won't make sense when you so misunderstand to such a degree. You created a redirect for a term which for all intents and purposesdoes not exist. Some of the sources from your simplistic google search are academic papers that speciallyrefute such usage of the term in the case of Hiroshima. There is simply nothing here to indicate this would be a plausible search term. You're in a hole. Stop digging.Tarc (talk)16:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • The refutation of a concept is evidence of it's notability. Allow me to quote fromWP:FRINGE#Identifying fringe theories: "References that debunk or disparage the fringe theory can also be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." I don't appear to be the one damaging my position by advancing new arguments.Jclemens (talk)18:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It cannot be said enough times that a metric fuckton of drama would have been avoided if you would have just reverted your self and deleted this thing.Tarc (talk)20:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — pointy creation,POV, term rarely if ever used to describe redirect target.Spacepotato (talk)23:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I struck "POV" from my remark as according toWP:R#Neutrality of redirects there is no requirement that redirects be NPOV. It's still an implausible term.Spacepotato (talk)04:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteWP:POINT. Sad to see administrators behaving this way.Grsz¹¹00:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, actually reading the policies and following them? Rather, it's too bad that other editors don't take the time to do so. Note that you've articulated no reason for deletion.Jclemens (talk)05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notice that he actually did articulate a reason for deletion. The first word after "delete" links to the policy violation in question. The issue here is that you created this link in retaliation to the wholeFort Hood RFD, which is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point.Jedibob5 (talk)23:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that is an accusation of bad faith against me, not an argument relevant to the deletion of this redirect. It's also a circular argument, in that it can't beWP:POINT conduct on my part unless it is actually harming the encyclopedia. Thus, without a policy-based reason for the deletion of this redirect, theWP:POINT challenge is entirely unsupportable.Jclemens (talk)23:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine, have it your way. Delete as improbable search term, as evident by how long this went without existing, and was only created as a way of making apoint by a redlink in another discussion.Grsz¹¹05:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in case my above arguments weren't clear enough.Jclemens (talk)06:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closing admin summarizing reason for keeping this redirect.
  • There has beenno refutation of reliable sources discussing the term, merely assertions that such are insufficient.
  • stats show 68 uses of this term so far this month. While some are undoubtedly related to this RfD, there is no evidence that the redirect would be "rarely if ever" used.
  • Accusations of bad faith against the redirect creator are irrelevant. IfWP:POINT is a deletion reason, then the argument is circular. Rather, POINT requires a specific allegation of harm or disruption, which has not been forthcoming. If the redirect is useful and appears in reliable sources, then it is beneficial, not detrimental, despite theincivil arguments of some arguing for deletion.

  Thus, while there have been a few negative reactions to theact of creating this redirect, the fundamental rightness of it has not been questioned--indeed, the nominator has even proposed abetter target! Lacking any policy-driven reason for the redirect to be deleted,consensus is that this redirect be kept.Jclemens (talk)17:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, both myself and Bigtimepeace refuted your google-search sources, please do not claim and say there were no refutations of your sources, as that would be rather untruthful. If you disagree, that's fine, but don't claim something that isn't true. I also still hold that someone who creates a redlink out of another person's post to make apoint, as you did, is not acting in good faith. As the only keep entry is by you, the creator, I'd say that this is a prety clear-cut delete anyways.Tarc (talk)17:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refutation of sources is not mere dismissal, which is what you did. Characterizing Bigtimepeace's arguments as refutation is even less convincing. 4 to 1 would indeed be a consensus if we were counting noses, rather than the strength of arguments. The lack of policy-based arguments from those opposed to such a redirect, coupled with thead hominem assertions that I've acted in bad faith, make it clear, however, that not only is no policy-based argument for deletion being advanced, it also undermines the assertion that such an argument even exists. After all, there's been a week to come up with a good argument, but all that's been mustered is vague handwaving aboutWP:POINT, which is still circular logic.Jclemens (talk)18:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I only needed a few hours to come up with an argument that I am perfectly comfortably with, actually. How about you just let the closing admin decide for him/herself rather than create these needless meta-votes at the end of the discussion?Tarc (talk)18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got an even better idea: how about you go through this RfD and redact all your incivil comments about me? Summaries are not meta-voting, any more than a closing argument in a courtroom is.Jclemens (talk)19:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing an opinion that you have acted in bad faith is not in itself an act of incivility, as I have given an explanation for said opinion.WP:AGF is not a shield for any and all behavior under the sun, nor is it a cudgel with which to cow others. If you still really have a bee in your bonnet about anything said, the proper venue isthataway.Tarc (talk)22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and troutslap - pretty much the definition ofbeing point-y. In another RfD, an editor said that the redirect under discussion there would be no more valid than this one. Jclemens then went and createdHiroshima terrorist attack. On the merits though: (1) it's not a common search term. Getting 68 hits for that phrasing of the Hiroshima bombings is pretty small when you consider that Hiroshima has about 56k hits. (2) it retroactively applies a label to an event despite the fact that terrorism wasn't really a common term at the time. Honestly, the creator should know better. --Bfigura^(talk)17:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ignoring even more assumptions of bad faith, your assertion (1) ignores the fact that the redirect was RfD'ed the same day it was created. There is no basis to assert that it is not a useful search term, when current trends show ~10 uses per day. To your point (2) as was pointed out by the nominator, we do indeed deal with the retroactive application of such labels to 64 year old acts,United_States_and_state_terrorism#Atomic_bombings_of_Japan.2C_1945. No applicable policy basis for deletion has been articulated.Jclemens (talk)19:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • AGF doesn't really require anyone to suspend common sense nor wait some arbitrary length of time after pointy actions are taken to address them. Still, on review of the policy, it's hard to make a compelling case against the redirect. I'm refactoring my !vote accordingly. Actually, no. I'm still claiming implausible redirect. With regard to your 10 hits per day: it's an odd claim to make given that there were 0 hits inOctober,September,August,July, ... all the way throughJanuary when I got bored of lookingAlthough this could be an artifact of the way the tool works. This simply isn't a plausible redirect and should deleted as such. --Bfigura^(talk)22:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obscure, unuseful term. Completely inaccurate and unsupported in the main. Bigtime says it well. Tarc makes a telling point as well, in pointing out the absurdity. Without impugning JClemens or doubting his good faith, I find his arguments a little strained, and I just can't see what the purpose is for this redirect. It is certainly provocative and inflammatory in nature, though I will not join in ascribing bad faith or pointyness to JClemens' intent. Dlohcierekim02:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not a plausible redirect.UltraExactZZ^Said~Did14:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Grsz11, and Bfigura. BlatantWP:POINT violation.GlassCobra14:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of national languages of India

• List of national languages of IndiaList of national languages of India →Languages of India (links to redirect) (stats) 
• Delete per Ultraexactzz.╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 18:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)Seems to have been intended for discussion above.--Tikiwont (talk)05:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole title is wrong cuz there is no national language of India but only official language's & hence the word national language or list of national language goes wrong .Doctor muthu's muthu^{wanna talk ?}17:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While the term "national language" is not officially recognized by the Govt of India, it is commonly used to describe the Eighth Schedule languages.Gbooks shows significant usage of the term, and also a couple of books explaining it. Since we aren't talking about the article's title, but a redirect, this is valid. -SpacemanSpiff20:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - whether the government use the term is irrelevant - you have to consider thatan encyclopaedia user might use this as a search term. If so, they will redirected to the correct article to enlighten themselves, rather than a page suggesting that they create an article with this title.   pablo_hablo.20:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but can anyone say this title is not misguiding ??.... so would u suggest tht an article may be created as the earth's 2nd moon & redirect it to the real one ??.....this reason doesn't support the cause . if as peryou an article with the same title is created in future then an AFD may be brought . we'll if in case this redirects deletion request fails & if i rewrite the redirect as an article bringing the real picture & terminate the redirect will anyone oppose ?? .....i never bring an AFD to any meaningful wiki stuff until they r terribly misguiding likethis one . hope you all understand . thanks .--Doctor muthu's muthu^{wanna talk ?}11:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But one of the reasons for redirects is to guide people to the correct article when they type the wrong thing in the search bar. SeeBarock obama for instance. It really doesn't matter that the title of the redirect is incorect as long as the user is then directed to the correct article. If you examine the statisticeshere it seems that over a thousand people per month are searching for this term so it is a useful thing; without the redirect these people would be getting a message saying "List of national languages of India does not exist - would you like to create it?" which would be bad because the article "List of national languages of India" should not exist. Happily it doesn't.   pablo_hablo.11:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well.....i agree tht ur info's r convincing ....thanks .....this may be a spelling mistake & doesn't misguide the people ...... it would be nice had there been a redirect asLanguages with official status in India but notthis which is nowhere near a reasonable redirect . but again i say ....ur info's r convincing .....--Doctor muthu's muthu^{wanna talk ?}12:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but point it toLanguages with official status in India.AshLin (talk)13:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redirecting it toLanguages with official status in India might do some good .but sure not the best...--Doctor muthu's muthu^{wanna talk ?}17:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SPartan II project

• SPartan II project →Characters of Halo#Spartans (links to redirect) (stats) 

Delete - extremely unlikely capitalization typo.65.94.252.195 (talk)10:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Have you never had your finger held down the the Shift key by mistake? If so, congratulations. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds}10:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Wikimedia software will automagically bring you to the proper page without this particular capitalization, unless you use it as an internal link, in which case it shouldn't exist anyways.65.94.252.195 (talk)05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as avery likely typo (WP:RFD#KEEP).147.70.242.54 (talk)15:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's a typo that should not be used as an internal link, and doesn't need to exist for searchbox navigation because Wikipedia automatically finds that page anyways. If you type "SPARtan II project" into the search box, it automagically finds the closest matching page, should we create a redirect forSPARtan II project then? What aboutSpartan Ii project , since that's also a shift-key mistake.65.94.252.195 (talk)05:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sometimes capitalisation can change a page: seekiss andKISS. Anyway, if you want to get technical it should be "SPARTAN-II project" anyway. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds}15:23, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to "Spartan II project" and Delete current page, as currently Spartan II project sends you to this page from the search box. Whilst keeping these due to the fact they may be inbound external links is a good thing, the article view statistics suggest that this is not used anywhere as an external link. By having the redirect at "Spartan II project", this should be fine. I appreciate the above arguments that it is a likely typo, however the software fixes this for us. By moving the page to a more likely inbound term/search term we will avoid any other sites linking in via this odd miscapitalization. --Taelus (talk)17:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, I agree with Taelus' suggestion. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds}17:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Struck suggestion to move. After saving my comment here I thought "Why not be bold and create the alternative plausible redirect now?". Also, no prejudice to keeping this possible inbound link, however I personally feel that the current page view statistics support it's deletion before it is mistakenly used as an inbound link. The pageSpartan II project will handle any typos in the search box for now. --Taelus (talk)17:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Taelus. Not necessary.GlassCobra14:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New states (German geography)

• New states (German geography) →New states of Germany (links to redirect) (stats)

• New Federal states →New states of Germany (links to redirect) (stats)

• New federal states of GermanyNew federal states of Germany →New states of Germany (links to redirect) (stats)

all these redirects are unlikely search terms, or slightly misspelled versions of an already existing redirect, all created yesterday during a revert war.Nero the second (talk)

• Delete first two, but keep last one. The second is clearly too vague to be useful, while the first is highly unlikely (more likely to be searched:New states (Germany)). The third is foreseeable enough to be worthy of keeping. It is a common misconception that the general Wikipedia user would be searching in the same manner as the general Wikipediaeditor. I'd also strongly suggest a renaming of the target article to have it conform more in terms ofWP:NAME as "new" itself can be POV (and the title implies a list article).147.70.242.54 (talk)15:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the second one as extremely vague, no opinion on the other two.65.94.252.195 (talk)05:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - Move warring is bad, but eliminating the redirects left behind does not help much to make sense of an already confusing history[2]. See alsoWikipedia:RFD#KEEP point 1. While some may seem to be clumsy or vague, the search term argument is less relevant for them and rather points at restoringNew states (Germany) that has been already been deleted per G6 during the move war as the most likely help.--Tikiwont (talk)06:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Joseph's Convent School (disambiguation)

• Saint Joseph's Convent School (disambiguation) →Holy Family Convent Senior Secondary School, Khurai (links to redirect) (stats) 

A dab title that redirects to the main one. It redirects to a different title right now due to some page move vandalism which has since been fixed. -SpacemanSpiff03:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a need for this page.Boleyn2 (talk)06:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Bayer designations

• D AndromedaeD Andromedae →Delta Andromedae
• E Andromedae →Epsilon Andromedae
• G Andromedae →Gamma Andromedae
• G And →Gamma Andromedae
• I Andromedae →Iota Andromedae
• K Andromedae →Kappa Andromedae
• L Andromedae →Lambda Andromedae
• M Andromedae →Mu Andromedae
• N AndromedaeN Andromedae →Nu Andromedae
• P Andromedae →Pi Andromedae
• B Apodis →Beta Apodis
• D Apodis →Delta Apodis
• G Apodis →Gamma Apodis
• I Apodis →Iota Apodis
• D Capricorni →Delta Capricorni
• G Capricorni →Gamma Capricorni
• I Capricorni →Iota Capricorni
• K Capricorni →Kappa Capricorni
• L Capricorni →Lambda Capricorni
• M Capricorni →Mu Capricorni
• N Capricorni →Nu Capricorni
• P Capricorni →Pi Capricorni
• A CMi →Procyon (= α CMi = α Canis Minoris)
• A CMa →Sirius (= α CMa = α Canis Majoris)
• M Ara →Mu Arae (= Mu Ara)
• A Canis Majoris →Sirius (= α CMa = α Canis Majoris)
• B Canis Majoris →Beta Canis Majoris
• D Canis Majoris →Delta Canis Majoris
• G Canis Majoris →Gamma Canis Majoris
• I Canis Majoris →Iota Canis Majoris
• K Canis Majoris →Kappa Canis Majoris
• N Canis Majoris →Nu Canis Majoris
• O Canis MajorisO Canis Majoris →Omega Canis Majoris
• A Canis Minoris →Procyon (= α CMi = α Canis Minoris)
• E Canis Minoris →Epsilon Canis Majoris

These redirects are all from aBayer designation of a star with a Roman letter to the corresponding Bayer designation with a Greek letter (a → α, b → β, etc.) Unfortunately, Greek and Roman letters are not interchangeable inside Bayer designations. In the list above, although the Greek-lettered designations specify stars, the Roman-lettered designations do not—they are meaningless. These redirects should therefore bedeleted. SeeWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 16 andWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 October 4 for previous discussion on similar redirects.Spacepotato (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Update: I added some more which should bedeleted for the same reason.Spacepotato (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Spacepotato (talk)03:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Spacepotato's reasoning.65.94.252.195 (talk)05:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]