Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 28
November 28[edit]
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on November 28, 2007
Jeremy Rosenfield → History of Wikipedia[edit]
The result of the debate was keep. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
This used to redirect to Wikipedia#History, now it goes here, but neither target makes much sense, as the name 'Jeremy Rosenfield' is mentioned nowhere in either article. (Or, as far as I can tell, anywhere on Wikipedia.) I can't work out the purpose for this redirect's existence, and if it hasn't got one, it should be deleted. Terraxos (talk) 02:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Back in Feb 2006 (when this redirect was created), Jeremy was mentioned in that section. I could not find when it was taken out. Nor could I determine if that removal was deliberate or an accident caused by all the vandalism on that page. It's not doing any harm and on the off-chance that the content is restored to the page, we should probably keep the redirect. Rossami (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Redirect provides people with no information. Keeping something "on the off-chance that content is restored" sounds like crystal balling. Doczilla (talk) 10:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It's not crystal-ballery, it's a requirement of GFDL as long as there is any reasonable chance that this was good content which will be restored. If you can find where in the page's history that content was removed and show that it was probably deliberate, I'll remove my objection. I couldn't find it amidst all the vandalism. Rossami (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- This is a misspelling of "Jeremy Rosenfeld" which is indeed mentioned in the article. --- RockMFR 09:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, I'm fine with Keeping it. Terraxos (talk) 20:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC) (original nominator)
Load bearing boss → Boss (video games)[edit]
The result of the debate was keep. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I discovered this redirect by accident, and noticed that almost two months ago User:Happinessiseasy has attempted to nominate it for deletion. Unfortunately, they tried to do so using AfD rather than RfD, and didn't complete the process anyway, so there was no deletion discussion. The nominator hasn't edited Wikipedia since then, but in the name of respecting their intentions, I've nominated the redirect for discussion here. I don't have any personal feelings about this one myself. Terraxos (talk) 02:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- For those wondering: this redirect is all that remains of a deleted article which used to be here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Load bearing boss. Terraxos (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete in deference to the AFD discussion. Nothing in that discussion suggests that anyone thought a redirect would be any better an outcome than the deleted article. Rossami (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. The Boss (video game) article exists. It explains what a load bearing boss is. Redirect should probably go directly to the appropriate section, though. Doczilla (talk) 10:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Harmless redirect, possible search term. --UsaSatsui (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Sarah Fendall → Thomas Contee[edit]
The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn. Rossami (talk) 01:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Bad redirect. She is not her husband. Toddst1 (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- What a mess. The Sarah Fendall article was created on 24 Jan 2007. Content from it was used in the creation of the article on her husband, Thomas Contee. (By the way, that article clearly does state that they were husband and wife. Interestingly, the nominator has been active in the editing of the husband's article but did not choose to challenge the assertion there. I am at a loss to understand the comment above.) Anyway, the Sarah Fendall article was moved, then speedy-deleted on 11 Feb citing CSD A-7. While not all historical figures are notable, they are all presumed to have an automatic assertion of notability. This was clearly not an appropriate use of A-7. Worse, the speedy-deletion destroyed the attribution history of content that was merged. The redirect was created later the same day by the deleting admin. I have to assume that this was an oversight made in ignorance of the requirements of GFDL. I have restored the full history to the page.
Unless someone shows a source that justifies changing the Thomas Contee article or makes an argument that the target article fails our notability criteria, I think we must keep the redirect. Rossami (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)- Comment: There is no question that Sarah Fendall was married to Thomas Contee. The question is should she have a redirect to him? Similarly, should their contemporaries Anne Tasker redirect to Samuel Ogle and similarly for all notable colonial couples? Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- I misunderstood your original comment. Yes, the general rule is that non-notable family members redirect to the notable person. But no, we don't go out of our way to preemptively create those redirects. This redirect was the result of a merger of content and has to be kept in order to comply with GFDL. It does not create a precedent that other spouses must be similarly redirected. Rossami (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: There is no question that Sarah Fendall was married to Thomas Contee. The question is should she have a redirect to him? Similarly, should their contemporaries Anne Tasker redirect to Samuel Ogle and similarly for all notable colonial couples? Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. No, she is not her husband, but if she is not notable enough for her own article, then she needs a redirect to her notable historical connection. Doczilla (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)