Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 27[edit]

High-Frequency Gravitational Waves → Gravitational wave[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. Not sure why this has been listed here. No argument given for deleting the redirect has been forthcoming. Whether we should have an article or a redirect is clearly better debated on the talkpage or at WP:AFD. WjBscribe 00:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was deleted through PROD as being an unlikely search term, and a "mask" for an OR article. PROD was contested at DRV [1]. Xoloz 15:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • A list of contacts can be provided upon request that can show that the research is not O.R. Csblack 17:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This seems to be a misuse of this procedure to win a content dispute. The original 30 kB article is here. No attempt has been made to challange its POV, and no attempt has been made to delete it using {{prod}} or WP:AFD. This may be pseudoscience, but the article does not seem to be WP:OR. -- Petri Krohn 20:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gravitational waves come in high and low frequencies. Singling out high frequency waves for an article represents a violation of WP:WEIGHT. We redirect the article to the place where gravity waves are properly discussed. This is similar to how rotating magnetic field was redirected so there is precedent. --ScienceApologist 15:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The page on Gravitational Waves only discusses low frequencies. Csblack 16:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

California_Evidence_Code → Federal_Rules_of_Evidence[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted under CSD R3. There can be no real dispute that nom. is absolutely correct; search term unlikely, unreasonable, and deceptive. Xoloz 15:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

California Evidence Code is not equivalent to Federal Rules of Evidence, so redirect is nonsensical. Axios023 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Estonia (1917-1918) → History of Estonia[edit]

The result of the debate was Not a redirect. There seems to be an on-going debate if this is should be a redirect or an article, but the current status is it's an article. This should be worked out on the talk page or dispute resolution if needed. I would note that if it has been merged, then the history needs to be kept and a redirect is the easiest way to do that. -- JLaTondre 01:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is now a placeholder of an arbitrarily extracted episode of History of Estonia. The content of the former page has been merged to History of Estonia by now, and it is unlikely that a future spin-off section of the history page will extract a section on this basis. (If/when a spin-off of this material occurs, it'll most likely be by topic, such as Creation of the Republic of Estonia.) Digwuren 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stop this madness - Estonia (1917-1918) is not a redirect, but an independent article, that just survived an AfD nomination by this same nominator. This is just a misguided attempt to delete the edit history. -- Petri Krohn 19:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I being the original nominator. Digwuren 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot At the moment it is not a redirect but an article. But it is apparent from the article page that the "discussion" is still in process, and it looks like another AfD is likely. There's nothing that is appropriate here at this time. DGG 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
The result of the debate was Duplicates of open debates on May 25 page. The nominator listed four redirects in his AFD page and he also nominated them on RFD on May 25. Two of those he withdrew & the other two are still open. The AFD was closed, but the two RFDs remain. The two below are the same two. Let's not duplicate ourselves. -- JLaTondre 01:11, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eestimaa → Estonia[edit]

Foreign-language redirect; does not belong in English Wikipedia. Digwuren 19:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was recently up for deletion; the deletion discussion was stopped early because I withdrew deletion nomination of another, bundled article.

I have copied the previous discussion below, above the rule. Digwuren 19:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is yet another attempt to circumvent the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland -- Petri Krohn 19:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the previous debate still seems to be open (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 25#Eestimaa → Estland. If it was closed, it has been re-opened, making this discussion redundant. Xtifr tälk 20:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The debate was closed on 03:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC) as : The result was Withdrawn by nominator [ Digwuren] with respect to the article Estland. The nominator says that he still nominates four redirects for deletion, but I believe it would be extremely confusing to fundamentally change the focus of the AfD at this stage. The appropriate target for the redirects can be discussed on their talkpages, or if desired, they can be nominated at WP:RfD. Newyorkbrad . DGG 21:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eestimaa Hertsogiriik → Estland[edit]

Foreign-language redirect; does not belong in English Wikipedia. Digwuren 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was recently up for deletion; the deletion discussion was stopped early because I withdrew deletion nomination of another, bundled article.

I have copied the previous discussion below, above the rule. Digwuren 19:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this seems too implausible a search term to be useful; I'm not finding any English-language uses outside of Wikipedia and mirrors. Xtifr tälk 19:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, doesn't seem a chance whatsoever that this will be typed into the search box. *Cremepuff222* "As cool as grapes..." 01:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per the original proposal. Digwuren 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Original language names should be linked to articles to enable searches. -- Petri Krohn 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many times do you want to vote? Digwuren 20:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Votes in a previous discussion do not count here. -- Petri Krohn 20:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the previous debate still seems to be open at present, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 May 25#Eestimaa Hertsogiriik → Estland. If it was closed, it has been re-opened, making this listing somewhat redundant. My opinion remains unchanged, and I would like to add that nom has shown nothing but good faith that I've seen, going so far as to withdraw several nominations in the face of good arguments (arguments which do not apply to this redirect, IMO). Xtifr tälk 20:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This means these two RfDs are now doubled due to my fault. What shall be done about it? I'm at loss of improvisation ... Digwuren 20:51, 27 May 2007 (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/2007_May_27&oldid=1138574939"