Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 21, 2009

Redeem Me[edit]

The result of the discussion was speedy delete all save Adrianne Leon discography under G7, author request. Action already carried out by R'n'B. All the best, Steve T • C 22:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The songs are not notable enough for redirections (they were composed for a soap opera and I think nothing worthy happened to the songs) and I was the one who added a bunch of redirects on this article when I didn't know better. The band Caught Crimson is not notable at all, they have yet to even play a live show, are not signed to a notable record label,have no notable recordings. The discography redirect is plain horrible because I think the actress in question will never do anything significant to have the article. Greene Leigh Online (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • All of these that you created can be speedily deleted as you were the originator and sole contributor. Just tag each of them with {{db-author}} and an admin will delete them for you. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tagged all but the last redirect nominated above (it seemed nom had a second thought about that one, which actually links to an article that has Adrianne Leon's discography, which should be kept). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Explanation[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing name. "Explanation" can refer to any other explanation. All uses replaced with redirected target. Locos epraix ~ Beastepraix 17:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. A search page would be far more useful, and those trying to use it as a template would be well served by being more specific. —Zach425 talk/contribs 08:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Per nominator and per Zach. A search result would be a much better place to end up. As always, but especially important because its a template, who ever deletes this should be real careful to change pages that are using it first. —mako๛ 16:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Explanation of what? Much too vague to be useful. B.Wind (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

various NRHP HDs in CT[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete North Stonington Village Historic District redirect. Other request was withdrawn. Closing as involved admin -- to save someone else the trouble of reading the whole discussion. --Orlady (talk) 18:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a 7th batch of Connecticut NRHP Historic Districts (HDs), for which I propose deleting the redirect from NRHP name, to facilitate orderly article creation at the red-links that will then appear in the county-wide list articles such as National Register of Historic Places listings in New London County, Connecticut and in articles about towns that include them. Previous batches of similar NRHP HD redirects were: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 31#various New London County, CT, redirects, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 25#various Hartford County, CT, redirects, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 10#various Litchfield County, CT, redirects, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 17#various Middlesex County, CT, redirects, Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 July 13#various New Haven County, CT, redirects, and Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 June 25#various Tolland County, Connecticut NRHP HDs. As Aervanath noted in closing the similar Tolland County batch "While certain of the target articles contain information about the history of the town, and some contain a small list of sites of historical interest, none actually discuss the historic district as such. Per WP:Red link, "red links help Wikipedia grow", as they encourage people to build articles to fill the gap, whereas redirects do not." doncram (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects proposed to be deleted:

Deletion looks like a good idea! --Orlady (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion of redirect. The Downtown Hartford article is a reasonable redirect destination. Note that the downtown isn't all that large, and the article covers (and could cover more extensively) the history of the whole area and the various areas listed as historic districts, whether city-designated, National Register-listed, or both. --Orlady (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Downtown Hartford article could conceivably be configured to be like Historic districts in Meridian, Mississippi where a description of each historic district can be made. About half of the historic districts there are part of a multiple resource submission. Of the rest that are not part, two are older and two are newer than the multiple resource submission. --Polaron | Talk 16:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But the Downtown North Historic District (Hartford, Connecticut) article is not at all comparable to the Meridian one, which is named differently and actually has a wikipedia editor who got sources of information about the HDs and developed it with references and maps and so on. If there was an under construction tag and ongoing development by an editor to actually substantially cover the HD, then it would be okay to keep the redirect for the time being. But currently the redirect just reflects one editor's one-time interest in developing an article, which did not happen. Despite being listed as a problem article since September 3, at Talk:List of RHPs in CT#Downtown North Historic District, there has been no development of the article. This is like a CT town article, which lists a number of HDs and provides minimal information merely from the NRIS database, most of which appears in the CT NRHP list article, too.
To state again a recently quoted guideline, the guidance at WP:Redirect is that redirect should be deleted "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains little information on the subject," which is the case here. Note, there is only minimual, NRIS-based information at the Downtown Hartford article for this HD. Note, further, that even what is formed from that is probably false. (It is stated: "Most of the listed properties were designed by William G. Allen in the late 19th century and includes houses with Mid-19th Century Revivial and Late Victorian styles." That appears to be a misguided fabrication from the presence of two fields in the NRIS database entry: "Architect: Allen, William G." and "Architecture: Mid 19th Century Revival, Late Victorian". This appears like many similar fabrications from NRIS info that have been rooted out from other CT NRHP articles.) So anyhow the target article contains little information on the subject. It is not okay to prevent the development of a real article on the HD at the HD's name. Both the CT NRHP list-article and the Downtown Hartford article should show a red-link for the HD, to make way for article creation. doncram (talk) 23:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have expanded the article. --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added a bit more about the Downtown North HD. Sorry to be harsh, but I am not impressed. The revised statement about architecture, that "Most structures in the district were designed by architects, including William G. Allen.[3][4]" is pretty lame, in my view. Perhaps you are joking? I do see there is a statement in the new listing announcement source to the effect that most buildings in the district were designed by local architects, but your rendition of that just appears to me to emphasize that there is little known about the NRHP HD by you now as an author of the redirect target article. I note that the new listing announcement and the HPA walking tour sources (3, 4) which you added both document that the Downtown North HD is separated, split off by a freeway, from the rest of downtown Hartford, so already it appears it is an awkward merge. From your editing interests and history, I guesstimate that you are not yourself willing to commit to developing the Downtown Hartford article to include maps delineating the districts and to use substantial sources such as the NRHP documents, like was done for the Meridian article. (Please do clarify if you do plan yourself to develop this article substantially like that in any near timeframe.) It is only further clarified from your sources that Downtown North HD could very plausibly be expanded into an article, if any editor would like to obtain the free NRHP application document about the district. Based on my reading many other NRHP HD application documents, I believe there would be plenty more specific to write about individual contributing properties in the district. It is fine to have as much as you wrote in the Downtown Hartford article, but it doesn't change the fact that there should be a redlink from there to the NRHP HD article name, allowing and suggesting that an editor who cares to do so could develop a separate article on it. Repeating Aervanath's words, "Per WP:Red link, "red links help Wikipedia grow", as they encourage people to build articles to fill the gap, whereas redirects do not." I don't understand what your goal is here, but I think you have expressed elsewhere that you don't want there to be crummy stub articles. I don't care really, but if you want to insist that the redirect should not be deleted, then I will be happy to replace the redirect instead by a legitimate stub article on the Downtown North HD. What i object to is the redirect which inappropriately conveys, consistent with irrational-seeming-to-me edit warring history on many CT NRHP HD topics, that an editor would not be allowed to create a legitimate article on a wikipedia-notable topic. If the only way to establish that an article can be created is to create a stub article now, I will oblige. doncram (talk) 05:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration of the Downtown Hartford article, I think that it does not meet wikipedia guidelines and I have now opened an AFD nomination for it. In previous RFDs, it has seemed that one oppose often derails a legitimate deletion of redirect request. I'll concede this redirect deletion request is now complicated, and withdraw the request. I'll just replace the redirect by a starter article. doncram (talk) 07:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (per Doncram's reasons). Lvklock (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Per User:Doncram who obviously cares about and is knowledgeable about articles in this topic area. If User:Doncram thinks that we're at a stage where red links will be useful, I'm very likely to agree. —mako๛ 20:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this be closed? It was reduced to one item, and there have been 3 votes of support for my nominated deletion of the one redirect. There has been no opposition. Why not close this? doncram (talk) 08:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Philippine College Of Health and Sciences[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 21:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad name, the name of the school is not Philippine College Of Health and Sciences but Philippine College of Health Sciences, Inc. Marking "Philippine College Of Health and Sciences" as a redirect is not good, especially that there is no Philippine school existing with the name "Philippine College Of Health and Sciences". JL 09 q?c 15:35, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - a bit far afield from being a valid/likely search item for the redirect to be a useful one. B.Wind (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unlikely to be a search term if it's no longer prompted in the search box. And even if it is searched, the correct target shows up as the first search result. —Zach425 talk/contribs 08:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete -- I think you're probably right about the search box and, in that case, it should be deleted. If it looks like this is still getting traffic after the redirect is deleted, I'd change my mind and want to see it recreated. —mako๛ 04:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are a lot of internal links pointing to this redirect (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Philippine College Of Health and Sciences). --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Indoor garden[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was retargeted to Greenhouse - take your choice: I'm being bold in retargeting after seeing that there is unanimity in the recommendations (non-admin close). B.Wind (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Target makes no mention of redirect's title. UltraMagnus (talk) 13:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

England's Next Top Model[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedily closed due to kept per discussion. NAC. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 11:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete status that is a not necessary redirect. Please see March 31 discussion. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 04:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - although I get frustrated by people who confuse Britain with England, this is a fairly common occurrence, and acknowledging it through such a redirect is not a horrible idea. Also, some of those who are aware of this distinction might not realize that the version of Top Model aired in England is in fact termed Britain's and not England's. —Zach425 talk/contribs 09:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - while the title is not correct, in the minds of much of the English-speaking world, "Britain" and "England" are virtually synonymous. For that reason, it should be kept as a reasonable, anticipated search item. Think of it, nom: why did the previous RfD close as a no consensus to delete? I see no such urgency to do so. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Sure sounds like a likely search term to me. —mako๛ 14:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a likely search term given American's tendencies to not know/care about the difference between Britain and England (hell, I thought the show was England-specific) and Speedily close based off the result from the previous RfD. Why is this being nominated again? ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 05:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_September_21&oldid=1144722198"