Knowledge (XXG):Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 9

1206:- it seems the reason for keeping is that this specific "error" or "glitch" is notable within this particular game. Yet the words "error" and "glitch" are missing from the target article. Without a mention/explanation of the term, there is nothing to indicate why the redirect is targeted the way it currently is. One of the abovementioned justifications for keeping refers to a "minor Internet" meme - how minor is "too minor" for inclusion of a redirect? 830:. Doesn't appear in target article or template of Beck's releases. Sole occurrences on the net are in an article for a Beck song purportedly on a version of this album and a Knowledge (XXG) mirror. Removing the terminal period doesn't change Google search results. I am also adding the "dotless" version, 1166:

This is where the redirect falls down, significance. I must admit I looked around a bit into the topic after noting the redirect, and it seems even the games fans are torn between whether the character who said it just happened to be called "Error", or whether it was a glitch. All in all, quirky, but

849:

Followup: this is the title of a early bootleg/"unreleased" cassette recording that clearly comes nowhere close to Knowledge (XXG) inclusion guidelines (again, zero online coverage, according to Google search). I have removed the reference to the tape in the one Knowledge (XXG) article that mentioned

610:

Well, what is clear now, wasn't that clear when I made this request, as the place were the term was defined wasn't really that obvious. Thank you for your answers to my doubt about this redirect, I now accept it as necessary and good, and retract my request for deletion. Good evening for you all, and

1295:

At that time, localisation of games was something quite new, and editors had very little knowledge about it – leading to poor, sometimes funny translations," says Anthony Teixeira, a localisation director for the company Active Gaming Media. "Today, I don't think Nintendo would publish a Zelda game

810: 1045:

Not mentioned in target article. I understand the significance, it is the name of a glitch which occurs in the game, but it is not really notable enough to recieve a mention, thus having a navigational aid pointing you there to try find out about it just seems misleading.

587:

This is an excellent use of a redirect, pointing a highly plausible search term to the place where all the available information on the term in Knowledge (XXG) is gathered. "Neldoreth" is mentioned and defined early in the article, one can hardly ask for more. If

1136:

It is relevant in that it is a line spoken in a game which had a minor internet meme about it. However, my issue with the redirect is that there is no information in the target. Whilst it is relevant, so would be the redirect "Can't let you do that starfox" --:

1118:. Over 100 hits each month since October shows this is a high traffic redirect. The nomination says that the target is relevant to the phrase (I personally have no idea), so I don't see a reason for deletion or retargetting. 1308:

This passing mention provides no context for how the phrase is notable and thus cannot be used in the target. Leaving the redirect to encourage insertion of original research into the target should be discouraged.

547:

At least to me it seems to be only circumstantially mentioned in the article. Do you accept such things here? Sincerely, I felt defrauded while following that redirect and finding nothing on the other side. The

927:, this would have been speedily deleted for a number of reasons. This was a typographical error linking titles to two Beck bootlegs - and the individual titles would have been quickly gone, too. 1152:

It would seem to me that if it is indeed something significant that is unique to (or identified with) this game, there would be some (at least nominal) mention of it in the target article.

1223:- there is nothing in the target to give this redirect any context. It makes no sense to have a redirect to an article that makes no attempt to demonstrate a connection with the term. 39: 995:. General consensus here seems to be that, while broadly relevant to the target, the lack of sourceable information on this phrase in the article makes the redirect not helpful. ~ 34: 1258:

it cannot be useless. And this redirect existing can provide impetus for expansion of the article when one gets redirected there and notices that something is missing. --

1181:(My nomination here could have been more clear, now I have used to word significance with 2 different meanings, but I think my point can be understood from my example.) -- 529:- the Doriath article explains that Neldoreth is the name of a beech forest within Doriath. I seriously doubt that a standalone article for Neldoreth is a viable option. 820: 1240:

per B.Wind. The target doesn't even mention "I am error." and there is no indication that this is a notable phrase for the game, so it is thus a useless redirect.

1064:

The title may not be as you prefer/ But I find not it lends any confusion/ The thing should stand, it will not make me err/ Delete it if it causes you contusion.

802: 831: 126:

I removed a mention from the target, since it a. had a circular link and b. pointed "Metapedia" to a now-removed section of a list. Also, Metapedia-: -->

332: 21: 375: 17: 843: 795: 596:, my view (as a long-term fan of the Silmarillion) is that that would be an excessive level of detail for Knowledge (XXG) on this topic. 1207: 1153: 880: 855: 835: 737: 571: 530: 378: 151: 552:

article even contains circular references to Neldoreth. If the subject isn't defined in teh target, the redirect shall be deleted. --

721: 1028: 511:

Target article does not defines the term used in the redirect. Either delete it or point to somewhere else where it is defined.

349:

Target article does not defines the term used in the redirect. Either delete it or point to somewhere else where it is defined.

1024: 685: 494: 109: 1278: 1302: 144: 1291: 1273:

The article cannot, and should not, be expanded to discuss "I am error" unless reliable sources discuss this phrase. A

982: 774: 649: 455: 289: 73: 245: 201: 945: 252: 1318: 1266: 1249: 1232: 1215: 1190: 1176: 1161: 1147: 1127: 1107: 1082: 1055: 1011: 953: 936: 915: 902: 888: 863: 745: 727: 670: 620: 602: 579: 561: 538: 520: 477: 424: 404: 386: 358: 315: 260: 233: 216: 185: 159: 132: 94: 1274: 981:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a

773:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a

648:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a

454:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a

288:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a

72:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a

342: 224:- it took me three readings for me to find the misspelling, and I'm sure that this would not be unique to me. 1211: 1157: 884: 859: 839: 741: 575: 534: 382: 328: 155: 468:

as nom now advocates keeping the redirect and no one else has recommended its deletion (non admin close).

616: 557: 516: 420: 400: 354: 716: 1255: 1104: 1038: 695: 504: 119: 1264: 1123: 1078: 879:

with two very different song lineups. On this basis, I'm tagging the redirect for speedy deletion.

311: 212: 1092: 53:

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 9, 2010

1310: 1241: 900: 871:

seems to indicate that the title of the redirect is actually the titles of two bootleg releases,

600: 592:

thinks there should be more information on Neldoreth he is free to add it, or to ask for it on

923:, but only because the speedy delete was declined. Ironically, had this not been a redirect to 677: 570:

viable search term, mentioned many times in the article, with information defining what it is.

1314: 1245: 1228: 1186: 1172: 1143: 1051: 932: 868: 791: 704: 666: 473: 229: 90: 303: 1101: 1259: 1119: 1074: 736:- there's no evidence of a KBNP (FM), KBNP-FM, or KBNP-AM/FM anywhere that I can find. 612: 589: 553: 512: 416: 396: 350: 308: 208: 702:

KBNP is an AM station; no evidence of any FM station using this particular call sign.

1323: