Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 September 13

September 13[edit]

Sertificate of seal impression → Seal (device)[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 15:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

procedural nomination Was tagged for PROD deletion by User:Ewlyahoocom as unlikely typographical error. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: ordinarily, typo and misspelling redirects are fine, but this combines an odd misspelling with an unusual and rare phrasing. I can probably be convinced to change my opinion if it turns out the phrase isn't as rare as I think. Xtifr _tälk 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:FilmWikiProject → Template:Film[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect no longer used. All articles cleaned up. RWardy 11:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirect doesn't do any harm and makes perfect sense. I see no reason to delete it, many WikiProject templates end with "WikiProject". Melsaran (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Melsaran. Simply south 20:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: harmless and potentially useful to those (like creator) who are still used to this name. Redirects are cheap. Xtifr _tälk 23:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plausible and useful redirects, given their historical use. As Xtifr stated above, some are still being used (or confused) :-). - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:WikiProjectFilm → Template:Film[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. WjBscribe 14:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect no longer used. All articles cleaned up. RWardy 11:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, redirect doesn't do any harm and makes perfect sense. I see no reason to delete it, many WikiProject templates start with "WikiProject". Melsaran (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Btw, shouldn't this go with the above RFD? 20:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply south (talk • contribs)
Keep Plausible and useful redirects, given their historical use. As Xtifr stated in a related discussion, some are still being used (or confused) :-). - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 21:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Allied occupation of Europe → Post-WWII Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe[edit]

The result of the debate was delete, confusing and POV. ♠P M C♠ 17:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a result of page move warring (see ANI thread). Originally deleted as WP:CSD#G4, but the article deleted in AFD previously was an article not a redirect. This is a procedural nomination per complaints of the previous deletion. Mr.Z-man 03:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirect is a leftover of Ghirlandajo's disruptive move warring over Soviet occupation, and its presence echoes a WP:POINT originally made by Petri Krohn and thoroughly refuted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe (2nd nomination). Digwuren 03:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, Ghirlandajo makes an important point at WP:AN/I about future recreation. As per that point, salt it after deletion. Digwuren 15:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The redirect makes no sense and causes confusion. Post-WWII the Soviet Union and UK/USA were not allies but Cold War adversaries. Hence the re-direct is senseless. Martintg 03:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Martintg plus the fact that the whole of Europe was never "occupied" by the Allies and the "Allies" never occupied Eastern Europe and so the title "Allied occupation of Europe" is nonsensical. --Richard 07:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete (with no comment on the move-war issue) as highly misleading. The allies never "occupied" Europe, and the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe is a totally different thing. Melsaran (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Melsaran and Marting. Suva 10:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The same reasons apply as for the deletion of the article with the same name. It is OR and POV by name. Sijo Ripa 17:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just factually incorrect. The Soviets and would eventually be NATO were not allied, nor did NATO occupy Europe. (Unless you think the French were occupying France, etc.) — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ORish and POVish name. Bye. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated by all above, there's no reason for this redirect, even more after ample discussions in various pages (see Digwuren's comments). Given this fact, its a candidate for WP:CSD#G10, but it's so late in the game that the discussion should finish its course. - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 22:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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