Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 2, 2010

Wish You Were Here (album)[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 retarget to Wish You Were Here#Albums. JohnCD (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Retarget to Wish You Were Here No articles link to this page. Its title is ambiguous. It is not a plausible search term unless you think non-Wikipedians regularly add "(album)" or similar suffixes to their searches. Cybercobra (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete Probably too many edits for me to G7. I thought I'd killed this already, since there're multiple albums with that name. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wish You Were Here and tag as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Adding (album) is a very plausible search time for anyone familiar with the way many articles on Wikipedia are named, which is a far greater group of people than just Wikipedians - we even have a template for redirects like this. With over 1000 hits in December and January and over 700 in February it's clear there is a need for something at this title. I would not object to keeping this as is, but in that case a hatnote should be added to the article about the Pink Floyd album. Thryduulf (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cyber, there is a bot that runs around then changing redirects to redirects, something I dislike because they might be there for a reason (a software thing: "Every problem can be solved by another layer of indirection. Including this one.") So while in theory your statement is sound, unfortunately I think a bot would think otherwise. I have had a bit of trouble at WP:BON recently with a bot doing what it should not do, so I am really not too keen on doing another one, because bot owners think they know better than human editors, so I just note it for your attention. Probably it won't but maybe it will, wrongly. Si Trew (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note from WP:NAMB: However, a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. There are multiple albums with the same name here, and not everybody is aware of more than one of them. B.Wind (talk) 06:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wish You Were Here, a disambiguation page with three albums named Wish You Were Here. Lack of incoming links is not a reason for deleting a redirect; some people not aware of the multiple albums would think about adding the "(album)" to the search. Despite the nom and the editor advocating a speedy delete, this is a plausible search term for one or more of the albums in question, and the dab page is the appropriate target for the redirect. B.Wind (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: I don't oppose retargeting to the dab, I just prefer deletion. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delberately I have not looked up what Wish you were here goes or says, but my guess is it is the Pink Floyd album, and not, say, the expression or the UKk TV travel programme. It would seem to me the Floyd album has a good case for being the primary title there, but I agree that a search term of (album) is not unlikley, well I frequently Google for that kind of thing, adding an extra word as precision. I say this from deliberate ignorance I have not Googled or done a WP search on this, so I am kinda doing it as a clueless nobody who does not know where these go. So I would say, with that, WYWH the floyd album should be primary topic, everything else should be on a dab page, and it must have a hatnote (I don't know why anyone would think it shouldn't) Si Trew (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't say that I understand your reasoning for commenting without knowing the facts, but you're guess is wrong. Wish You Were Here is the dab page (i.e. primary title disambiguation), the Pink Floyd album is at Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album). The dab page contains links to
    • Three albums with individual articles, and one album that is covered on a broader article
    • One Broadway musical
    • Eleven songs, six with individual articles, and another five covered on the articles about the album they're taken from
    • Two novels (one with it's own article, one covered on the article about its author) and a biography (covered on the article about its subject)
    • Two films, one with it's own article, one covered on the article about the series of films it is a part of
    • Two TV programs with individual articles
    • Four TV episodes, one with it's own article.
    Based on this, there is no primary topic for "Wish You Were Here", but it is possible that the Pink Floyd album is the primary topic among the albums. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Primary topics apply to bare titles (e.g. "Wish You Were Here"), not artificial disambiguated titles (e.g. "Wish You Were Here (album)"). --Cybercobra (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • So how do you describe the choice of which article gets a disambiguator like (album) and which gets one like (artist album)? Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • If there's more than one album, (album) is still ambiguous (thus defeating the point of disambiguation) and no article ought to get it. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, there is no such thing as a primary disambiguation ("primary topic" applies only to disambiguated titles). Since there is more than one possible location for "Wish You Were Here (album)", it appear that either a disambiguation page is needed for that title or a redirect to the disambiguation page at main title "Wish You Were Here" is the appropriate action. B.Wind (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning for not looking it up was exactly so I didn't know where anything went, i.e. to see it as an outsider sees it. I agree with you about the fix, on all counts Si Trew (talk) 20:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - either by adding a hatnote or retargeting. As per above, it is likely to be a common way of searching for the album. Ephemeronium (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize there're three albums with that name, right? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 05:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how many people searching for one of the albums will know that there are two others with that name? The stats suggest that many people do not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Digital download[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 dabified by Taelus - thank you. JohnCD (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing redirect. We have articles on Digital distribution and music download. This redirect used to point to the former and now points to the latter, and literally every use I've seen of it, music download would be more accurate. I could easily see someone thinking this would point to digital distribution instead, but at the same time it seems too nebulous for a dab. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the appropriate target article:Download#Download. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify as there are multiple appropriate target articles. Thryduulf (talk) 02:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have converted the page to a disambiguation page, pointing to the three suggested targets as above. I have not yet removed the RfD tag as the time has not yet expired, feel free to revert me and continue discussions if consensus ends up against this change. --Taelus (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify as above. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep dabified. It is definitely the best option and will make it easier to make sure everything points to the correct article. anemoneprojectors talk 18:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as dabified. Many thanks to Taelus for the bold dabification. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Contrariwise[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 {{wi}}. The redirect to Lewis Carroll was actually wrong: this is not one of his invented words like chortle or galumph. It dates back to Late Middle English, 14th/15th century. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned on target page. From the history, this is the name of a non-notable organisation of Lewis Carroll studies; it is no longer mentioned in his article, so the redirect is unhelpful. Robofish (talk) 12:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a Lewis Caroll word, if I remember correctly, it is Tweedledum and Tweedledee who say it. That does not make it notable or otherwise, it is a nonsense word, but it is in Alice. Si Trew (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the word is synonymous to "on the contrary," "in the contrary", or "to the contrary," it would make sense that if we had an article of either name, we'd simply retarget it to the article... but To the Contrary is an article about a US television discussion programme, while In the contrary is a redlink and On the contrary is a stub about a Kay Sage painting. Contrary is a dab page which really doesn't offer much as an alternative in this case. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{wi}}-ify. Better than deletion. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Old Trafford (football[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, consensus that it is an implausible typo. --Taelus (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this redirect uses incorrect punctuation and seems to be an implausible typo. – PeeJay 10:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd say R3, except it's been around for four years. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 23:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nonsense missing last paren, unlikely search term, clutter of the namespace. Si Trew (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects don't take up much space and people might forget the closing bracket when they type it in. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

George Washington/First Inaugural Address[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 --Taelus (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's incredibly obscure and has very little to no chance of being used. AP1787 (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment This was a subpage from the very early days of Wikipedia, created in March 2001 and replaced with an external link from the main article in September 2002, which has since been moved to the subarticle Presidency of George Washington (started 1 January 2007). Since May 2004 the source text has been hosted on Wikisource, and presumably the link from the article has pointed there from shortly afterwards. As the Wikisource page was taken not from this page, but directly from (presumably) the same source that was used for this page, I don't think there is any editing history that requires being kept. That said this does still get ~30 hits per month, and we generally keep redirects from former subpage titles to their present sub-article equivalents as there are still possibly external links that we have no reason to break. I can't decide whether this boils down to a keep or a delete recommendation though. 11:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep to retard WP:Link rot - this is one of the oldest pages in Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is not harmful, and it continues to be used; additionally, it is needed to maintain the external links. . DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

George Washington/Second Inaugural Address[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 --Taelus (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's incredibly obscure and has very little to no chance of being used. AP1787 (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tub Girl[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, arguments revolve around whether subject is notable enough to be included in target article. Other related redirects had a consensus to keep and add this information in, but discussion on the relevant talk page may be better to discuss the inclusion of content.

Not mentioned in target, and shouldn't be. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - we had two deletion discussions of the (very) similar tubgirl in 2008. Wikilinks have been provided for your perusal. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not appear in target. It shouldn't be redirected in this way just because it's (presumably) a shock site. We don't redirect non-notable websites to Website, why should this be any different? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is known as one of the early shock sites. It was in the target article at some point, and some of these redirects have non-trivial editing history. Gimmetrow 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Gimmetrow. Tubgirl is a well known shock site. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what reason? As I noted above, "Tub Girl" (and its variants) are not mentioned in the target at all. Thus this is a confusing redirect. That's why I recommended to delete all (repeating bold in case closing admin misses the first one in this list of nominations... which is already deleted). B.Wind (talk) 18:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Yes, it is a well-known shock site (well, I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it). But it is not in the target. If searching "tub girl", you're not looking for an article on shock sites in general. If it is well-known enough and notable, make it into an article. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it does no harm as a redirect, but I agree as its notable it should have its own article. PS I'm not copying this comment 5 times, but obviously it applies to the other variants. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources used in other articles mention this site, eg [1] ('it became the new "tubgirl" and goatse') presumes it is sufficiently well-known to help explain another shock site. Gimmetrow 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spongefrog. Either delete or create an actual article. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Redirects are cheap, this is true. But, there is no mention whatsoever of the redirect in the target; users have discussed re-adding it, but it never stays in due to sourcing issues. It would be best suited for either a full article (if significant coverage in sources could be found) or, more likely, added to a wiki-worthy List of shock sites. TheTito Discuss 10:48, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than argue this indefinitely, I have added something to the article so the term is mentioned. This, apparently, renders all the delete votes moot. Gimmetrow 13:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It should at least have a small subsection in the article, but I guess that does it for now. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add a brief mention to the target article. It is something that someone might look for plausibly in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If the target article doesn't mention it, then we don't need the redirect. If it really is as notable as people say, try creating a stand-alone article and see what happens! JBsupreme (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tubgirl.com[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 --Taelus (talk) 13:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, and shouldn't be. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - we had two deletion discussions of the (very) similar tubgirl in 2008. Wikilinks have been provided for your perusal. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not appear in target. It shouldn't be redirected in this way just because it's (presumably) a shock site. We don't redirect non-notable websites to Website, why should this be any different? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is known as one of the early shock sites. It was in the target article at some point, and some of these redirects have non-trivial editing history. Gimmetrow 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Gimmetrow. Tubgirl is a well known shock site. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... that doesn't appear anywhere in the target article. I'm reitering my recommendation that I made in the discussion of the first one in the list of nominated redirects to shock site: delete all as a redirect that is potentially confusing due to lack of presence in the target (reiterating in case the closing admin misses the first one, which is now speedy deleted). B.Wind (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What is this "confusion" of which you speak? Gimmetrow 18:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The confusion caused when a reader is redirected to an article that doesn't mention the item of his/her/its search. Tubgirl.com is not mentioned in the article; in this case a redirect of this title to an article without any mention of that name is simply wasting the reader's time. B.Wind (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than argue this indefinitely, I have added something to the article so the term is mentioned. This, apparently, renders all the delete votes moot. Gimmetrow 13:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's been added to the article. It's appropriate for us to have some mention. DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tubgirl[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Not mentioned in target article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - we had two deletion discussions of this redirect in 2008. Wikilinks have been provided for your perusal. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not appear in target. It shouldn't be redirected in this way just because it's (presumably) a shock site. We don't redirect non-notable websites to Website, why should this be any different? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep "R with possibilities" is an accepted practice and is used all over. The splatter of coverage that is out there could easily support a reliably sourced short mention in the target. Gigs (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is known as one of the early shock sites. It was in the target article at some point, and some of these redirects have non-trivial editing history. Gimmetrow 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Gimmetrow. Tubgirl is a well known shock site. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... that doesn't appear anywhere in the target article. I'm reitering my recommendation that I made in the discussion of the first one in the list of nominated redirects to shock site: delete all as a redirect that is potentially confusing due to lack of presence in the target (reiterating in case the closing admin misses the first one, which is now speedy deleted). B.Wind (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Yes, it is a well-known shock site (well, I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it). But it is not in the target. If searching "tub girl", you're not looking for an article on shock sites in general. If it is well-known enough and notable, make it into an article. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than argue this indefinitely, I have added something to the article so the term is mentioned. This, apparently, renders all the delete votes moot. Gimmetrow 13:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's been added to the article. It's appropriate for us to have some mention. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tub girl[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 --Taelus (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned in target, and shouldn't be. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - we had two deletion discussions of the (very) similar tubgirl in 2008. Wikilinks have been provided for your perusal. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not appear in target. It shouldn't be redirected in this way just because it's (presumably) a shock site. We don't redirect non-notable websites to Website, why should this be any different? Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is known as one of the early shock sites. It was in the target article at some point, and some of these redirects have non-trivial editing history. Gimmetrow 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Gimmetrow. Tubgirl is a well known shock site. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 12:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... that doesn't appear anywhere in the target article. I'm reitering my recommendation that I made in the discussion of the first one in the list of nominated redirects to shock site: delete all as a redirect that is potentially confusing due to lack of presence in the target (reiterating in case the closing admin misses the first one, which is now speedy deleted). B.Wind (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Yes, it is a well-known shock site (well, I didn't know that, but I'll take your word for it). But it is not in the target. If searching "tub girl", you're not looking for an article on shock sites in general. If it is well-known enough and notable, make it into an article, don't redirect it here. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Spongefrog. Either delete or create an actual article. --JokerXtreme (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is more discussion under the first of these. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than argue this indefinitely, I have added something to the article so the term is mentioned. This, apparently, renders all the delete votes moot. Gimmetrow 13:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that it's been added to the article. It's appropriate for us to have some mention. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Popular exemplar that's now mentioned in the article. --Cybercobra (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

David Baxter (character)[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, arguments for keeping based on the content being in the target article, which is not the case. The "List of Characters" article does not include this character either, thus retargetting is not currently an option. --Taelus (talk) 13:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of redirect. Redirect is for non-integral and very limited-appearance character from The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:00, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 00:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This character is non-notable to such a degree as not to gain a full bullet on the list of minor characters from the show. Neither viable target gives any information on the character in question outside of legal guardianship. TheTito Discuss 07:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If he is mentioned at all in the article, a redirect is needed. DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary. JBsupreme (talk) 07:19, 9 March 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_March_2&oldid=1140103551"