Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 16, 2010

February 16[edit]

Meditourist[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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Author has come up with one blog post ([1]) that uses term. In addition, author's name IS meditourist, which I don't understand. Word doesn't seem at all notable, based on online searches. -Zeus-u|c 22:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article 74(Constitution of India)[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 --Taelus (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that the removal of a space is a reasonable redirect reason. Removal should be deferred until completion of AfD. -Zeus-u|c 22:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I'm not going to die in a ditch over a redirect, but we use redirects for plausible typos of article names, and this is clearly a plausible typo of Article 74 (Constitution of India) as the page was created in the first place as the result of this very typo. Plus the redirect needs to remain as there are still pages linking to this typo instead of the correct article name. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned that it would be deferred until afd is closed. but that's not a plausible type, even though the page was created as that. If someone created a page called "Fo0d", meaning to say "Food", would you say that's a plausible typo? Sure, it may have happened, but we have a search engine for that. -Zeus-u|c 22:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:R#DELETE and WP:R#KEEP. None of the nominated reasons for deletion line up with criterion at WP:R#DELETE, and I point out that the redirect has a non-trivial edit history, it makes the creation of duplicate articles less likely, and it's still the target of several links throughout Wikipedia. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Actually it meets the first definition of the DELETE, depending on the extent of unreasonable. Also, it doesn't meet the KEEP reason you refer to: expanding KEEP criteria #2 to cover all whitespace expansions would envelop the entire rule. It also clutters the search box in this case because the root search is identical. I've fixed (will fix as soon as I post this) the redirected links as well. Shadowjams (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Second British Invasion[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 RFD no longer applicable as has been turned into an article. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deletion "Second British Invasion" is no longer an article but a section of the British Invasion article. The redirect is preventing the section from being split into a separate article. Edkollin (talk) 17:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now, until the new article is split off from the current target of the redirect. It appears that the editors associated with this intend to do a cut'n'paste move from the target's talk page, in which case deletion is not needed to do this (the top of WP:RFD encourages the overwriting of redirects with standalone articles). If for technical reasons the redirect precludes the move, help can be attained by asking an admin to assist in the split/move, either directly or through WP:Requested moves. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:SOFIXIT NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jeopardy! Brain Bus[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 per consensus (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All articles have been updated so that no article currently links to Jeopardy! Brain Bus. Sottolacqua (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Snipergate[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had originally deleted this as a speedy deletion (BLP violation), but another editor questioned the decision on my talk page. The term does not appear anywhere in the target article (except as an anchor for the redirect, added by the editor who queried me about the deletion), and it doesn't have a good deal of usage in mainstream sources (22 hits in a tailored Google news search, some of which are duplicates [2]). Ordinarily, I would have left it (it *is* only a redirect), but the pejorative nature of the redirect to a high-profile BLP, the relative lack of mainstream usage, and the total absence of the term in the target article struck me as inappropriate usage of a redirect.Horologium (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the target section in question is gone. Keeping it as "snipergate" is perjorative at best and inflammatory at worst. The simple statement of her inaccurate depictions of snipers appear to be given appropriate weight as it currently appears. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:59, 16 February 2010 (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/2010_February_16&oldid=1148047629"