Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 25, 2010

Upper Valley Medical Center[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 Keep, the article is not protected, thus conversion to article is possible. --Taelus (talk) 13:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this redirect to be deleted. I plan on creating an article for "Upper Valley Medical Center", but I am unable to do so because of the redirest to Premire Health Partners Texas141 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upper Valley Medical Center is not protected (as demonstrated by your ability to place teh {{rfd}} tag, so there is nothing stopping you replacing the redirect with an article. In fact it is encouraged. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. All you have to do is replace the #REDIRECT text with what you'd like to create there. JulieSpaulding (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being, as redirects do not discourage article creation (note that removal would not result in redlinks as the target has an external link for this hospital instead of a Wikilink). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Atrium Medical Center[edit]

The result of the discussion was keep with no prejudice against converting to an article in due course. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this redirect to be deleted. I plan on creating an article for "Atrium Medical Center", but I am unable to do so because of the redirest to Premire Health Partners Texas141 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out on another similar nomination you made, you are free to convert the article straight into an article, the redirect does not need to be deleted, simply remove the #REDIRECT part when you create the article. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the time being as deletion would not create any redlinks that would encourage article production (the redirect can be easily overwritten) - only mention of the hospital in the target is an external link. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1th, 2th and 3th[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 Keep all, arguments for keeping based on common misuse outweigh the arguments of "its incorrect" for deletion. --Taelus (talk) 13:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - 1th, 2th and 3th are all incorrect, and nothing links to these pages. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Grammatically incorrect they may be, but they are not all that implausible. A Google search on "21th" (with quotes) gives 1.46 million hits, so this is a common error. They are also in use e.g. [1]. Given how cheap redirects are, and the fact that they are really doing no harm, I support keeping them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. These articles were almost certainly created by mistake, and so I'd be happy for them to go. They're not needed. But on the other hand, there's no real harm in keeping them. Bazonka (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On a par with other Wikipedia:Redirects from misspellings. --JWB (talk) 22:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is for "redirects that are common enough misspellings to be useful to readers". I'm not sure if that's really the case here. Bazonka (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I expect they are very useful for non-native speakers. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Robert Greer (talk) 16:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Keep all per my comments about usefulness by myself and others. Thryduulf (talk) 01:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Los Angeles Metro[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 Boldly converted into Disambiguation page, as this has been listed a week with all suggestions to retarget/disambig. --Taelus (talk) 11:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest redirecting to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority page instead. Although it may be true most ppl prob are not looking for the agency, they are likely looking info on the whole system or the buses. The agency has officially branded itself as "Metro," which is now the common name of the agency and the system and is used for all press releases. Metro Rail is only one element of the Metro system, parallel to Metro Bus, Metro Rapid, Metro Liners, Metro Freeways, etc. Alternatively, all contents can be moved to Los Angeles Metro, and have the LA MTA page redirect there. --Mistakefinder (talk) 11:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would suggest that this reorganization proposal is best discussed on the article talk pages, not here. Per your observation about what people are looking for (and given that the agency is linked from the metro rail article), I'd say keep as is. —Кузьма討論 14:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Los Angeles Metropolitan Area as it is also commonly called "LA Metro". In addition, people outside of California would be more likely to be looking for information about the greater Los Angeles Area than for the local public transportation company. Regarding Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority: a hatnote would then be sufficient. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify to LA Metro-area, LA-MTA, and LA Metrorail 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or replace with disambiguation page. I know nothing about public transport in LA, other than it has buses and a rail rapid transit system. I would expect, as is currently the case, that Los Angeles Metro would lead me to the article about the rapid transit system, with Public transport in Los Angeles or a similar title and prominently linked from Los Angeles#Transport leading to the article about the whole system, possibly with a separate article about the organisation that runs it. I'd expect the urban area to be at Los Angeles metropolitan area (all with redirects from "L.A." and "LA" titles). I wouldn't object to a disambiguation page though. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Disambig, there are seemingly multiple valid usages of this term, however I wouldn't know personally if one is much more significant than another. --Taelus (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:ASUE/proposed[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) 13:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a clearly temporary template name that have gone well past its expiration date. Here's hoping a bold admin would speedily delete it as housekeeping. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Capitalist terrorism[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) 20:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV, misleading and inaccurate redirect, and possibly nonsense. There is no concept called "capitalist terrorism" and equating the alleged state terrorism by the US with capitalism is inaccurate. Defender of torch (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Data diddling[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 Speedy Close, redirect occured from Xqbot fixing a double redirect when "Fraud" was vandalised to redirect to George W. Bush. --Taelus (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect or show what data diddling has to do with GWB. sohmc (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it back to where its original target fraud. It was accentally moved to Bush's article by a bot as a double redirect since the fraud article was briefly redirected to George W Bush by a vandal. The fraud article does not mention the term either so I am not sure if orignal target is apporpiate.--76.69.165.160 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've adjusted the header of this nomination to note the redirect's target is now fraud. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 25 January 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_January_25&oldid=1138577287"