September 7

Vanessa Whoregens →Vanessa Anne Hudgens

Although not an attack page, the redirect definitely meetsWP:ATP and is clearly inflammatory.Nate07:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

☁ →Cloud

Pictures are not plausible redirects. --Kjoonlee19:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also ☺ ✄ and lots more symbols atUser:Ruud Koot/Unicode, which would all need to be deleted. --Kjoonlee19:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is no harm in having these redirects, and I would certainly expect a cloud to go tocloud a heart to go toheart, etc. Alternately they could all go toUnicode or something.Prodego^talk19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also seeprevious RfD.Prodego^talk03:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. The Unicode redirects are good. Why delete them? ---RockMFR21:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. RockMFR states my opinion perfectly. How is deleting them plausible? —Quin01:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How are they good? Can anyone give me a plausible explanation of why people would want to search for "☁" at Wikipedia, please? That's what I mean by implausible. --Kjoonlee07:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  These redirects are not going to be used by casual users, for the most part. They are probably going to be used by people who are familiar with Unicode and want to quickly get the semantic meaning for a given character. They certainly aren't causing any harm. ---RockMFR17:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, redirects are cheap, so we deliberately set the threshold for declaring them usefulvery low. The use-cases above shouldmore than suffice to meet our standards.Xtifr_tälk07:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bang Bang Bang →Gröûp X

Would people looking for "bang bang bang" (OK, I don't know who would, but I did trying to find articles with triply-repeated words in - FYI,Boom Boom Boom is a nice one) be looking forGroup X? --Montchav18:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Many people know the song btter than the band (Gröûp X), and it is therefore a viable search term.ZouavmanLeZouave20:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Agree with Zouavman. I noticed though, that the only two articles thatlink to it seem to be talking about a band. I don't know this band, but a disambiguation page is probably in order. --DJ Phazer01:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the song is mentioned at the target article, which alone should justify the redirect. No objection to turning this into a dab page, but there's absolutely no reason to delete. Redirects are cheap.Xtifr_tälk07:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BulletBall →American Inventor

The history of this one is a bit of a mess. It was originally an article on the named game. The game's only claim to notability is a breif appearence on the first season of the reality showAmerican Inventor. AnAFD was done on the article, with the result being to redirect to a new page for listing various inventions from the show. The new page was formed and BulletBall became a redirect. But the new page was a lot of non-notable stuff collected, and it was eventuallyAFDedtwice, with the result from the second AFD being to rename to show only the finalists, and to prune thepage down to just those entries. This removed any mention of BulletBall from the page. The BulletBall redirect was pointed back to the main American Inventor page, but that too does not mention BulletBall. Now, over the last few days, there has been a slow edit war going on between some who want to restore the BulletBall article to it's state from before the first AFD, since it no longer has anywhere to realistically point as a redirect, and others who want to enforce the original AFD's result that BulletBall remain a redirect. IMHO it's still not notable, never was, and should just be gotten rid of. Not 100% certain that RFD is the right place for this, but since a redirect is what it's been for a while now, here it is...TexasAndroid17:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. AsTexasAndroid has mentioned, BulletBall has little or no notablilty. Therefore, it should redirect to the article most relevant to it,American Inventor.Slartibartfast (1992)18:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: the arguments given are not really a valid argument for deletion. If the edit war and attempts to override the AfD consensus persist, though, it may be appropriate to ask for the redirect to be protected.Xtifr_tälk09:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree about the protection. If I'm unable to get the people disrupting BulletBall to stop, I'll request protection.Slartibartfast (1992)18:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• There never was a consensus reached for a re-direct in the AfD discussion. Consensus was to keep the article as it was. I don't understand how you can have a redirect for discussion if it was never agreed to to make it a re-direct. This discussion should be closed. --Keithn21:35, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Somehow "there never was a concensus" and "the concensus is keep" sounds contradictory. There was no concensus, I admit I was wrong in proclaiming that a redirect was the concensus, but the concensus was even less a keep, so please stop disrupting the BulletBall article on grounds of some false concensus,Keithn. FYI: this discussionwas closed until you decided to alter the BulletBall article in any way you pleased.Slartibartfast (1992)21:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"There never was a consensus reached for a re-direct" and "consensus WAS to keep " should make perfect sense to most English speaking people. There is only one consensus. It makes sense to point out what it was and what it was not. More people argued in favor of keeping than in favor of deleting or merging. --Keithn22:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• People had argued for keep, but those arguments were invalid sionce they vere obviously influenced by a POV (those people liked BulletBall). They could not find any references to prove its notability (apart from the obvious "Oh, it was on TV!", which definitely doesn't count) and therefore the largest amount of valid aruments was in favor of delete. As you said, there was only one concensus, but it was not keep. It wasDelete. I've laid all this out perfectly clear for you. Now, stop disrupting that article or I'm seriously gonna think you're not an English-speaking person.Slartibartfast (1992)00:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• More to the point, it says right at the top ofWikipedia:Articles for deletion/BulletBall, "The result wasMerge". If anyone believes that was an incorrect closing (by Slartibartfast1992, as it happens), then this needs to be subject to aWikipedia:Deletion review. Making a unilateral decision that the closing was wrongwithout a review is sufficient justification for Slarti (or anyone else) to ask for the redirect to be protected, at least until a review can be performed. As I read the debate, Slarti was being generous by closing as merge. AfD is not a vote, so whining about the numbers is meaningless. But that's an argument for review. Forthis debate, I stand by my original statement.Xtifr_tälk00:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I admit that my closure may be considered incorrect, as a matter of fact, but I know that the real concensus was definitely not keep (I actually think it would be delete, and an admin would be needed to delete it in the case that this proved true). I will request protection the next timeKeithn makes a disruptive edit to BulletBall.Slartibartfast (1992)01:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:S-Scout →Template:s-npo

In our ever constant effort tostandardize succession boxes, this redirected template is being proposed for deletion due to two reasons. The first reason is that it has been replaced and all linked articles have been redirected toTemplate:s-npo, which has been created to cater to all Non-Profit Organizations including Scouting organizations. The second reason is simpler, this template was awkwardly created requiring capitalization of the word "Scout" to function properly, even though every other template in the series does not require such treatment. I request that the redirect be deleted so it does not return into use as it is not the most appropriate template to use.
–Whaleyland (Talk •Contributions )17:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominee.
  –Whaleyland (Talk •Contributions )18:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; I am the creator, and no articles now use this template. --Gadget850 ( Ed)17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep Old versions of article might end up being broken. (Wikipedia does have a "history" feature, after all...) If you want to discourage its use, you could ask for page-protection or something similar. --Kjoonlee14:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: viewing templates (or images) correctly in old versions of articles has never been guaranteed, and if we tried, we'd almost never be able to delete any template (or image). Plus, page protection won't have any effect on transclusions. This is obsolete and unused, which is, has been, and will continue to be a perfectly valid reason for deletion.Xtifr_tälk10:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we do try, judging from my memory of TfD. --Kjoonlee05:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishy →Something Fishy

There's no reason why someone would be trying to get to a stub of a random novel from the 50s when typing the common english term "fishy" - I was trying to find if wiki had a page on the flash game. At best it ought to be a disambig, but really, until something notable named Fishy shows up, it serves no purpose save confusion.—Precedingunsigned comment added byKuronue (talk •contribs)23:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This page used to point tofish. Is there a reason not to simply restore the redirect to the more common term? "Fishy", after all, means "fish-like".Rossami(talk)00:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fishy actually means "suspicious", I think. --Kjoonlee14:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It carries that connotation because "fish-like" includes "smelling of fish". By the time fish smells like fish, it is starting to spoil. Over time, "fishy" gathered the sense of "potentially rotten" and then was generalized to "suspicious" in other contexts. If you look in a dictionary, though, "fishy" still primarily means "of or relating to fish" (Websters 9th Collegiate).Rossami(talk)18:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Rossami - bounce tofish.>Radiant<10:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]