Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 4, 2010

Big Picture (disambiguation)[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The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. (NAC) Armbrust Talk Contribs 01:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Unlikely search term. Withdraw. I was not aware of WP:INTDABLINK. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I am willing to withdraw The Big Picture (disambiguation) → The Big Picture on those grounds, but what about the first redirect, which, after my efforts to consolidate two disambiguation pages, looks something like this: Big Picture (disambiguation) → Big Picture → The Big Picture? Uncle Dick (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xqbot will come along soon to fix the double redirect. I don't see any reason to delete it; there may still be links to it somewhere out on the Internet, and perhaps someone will decide to split the disambiguation pages again in the future. Ucucha 20:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 'The Big Picture (disambiguation)', Retarget Big Picture (disambiguation) to 'The Big Picture'. WP:INTDABLINK is relevant as is the need to avoid breaking links on external sites for no benefit. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pam Tillis Collection[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 Pam Tillis discography#Compilations. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable album, not even listed in her discography. Extremely unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Pam Tillis discography#Compilations. Being a "Non-notable album" is not s deletion criterion for a redirect and it is inaccurate to say that this is an "Extremely unlikely search term" - it gets over 200 hits per month. Deletion is likely to provoke recreation. This is sufficiently a general title to be a useful search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 11:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Eon (normal meaning)[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible-seeming redirect; only exists 'cause it was once provided as a redlink on the dab page eon. 4pq1injbok (talk) 15:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as contusing - 'normal meaning' is ambiguous. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—implausible search term, potentially confusing. –Grondemar 03:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Level III Trauma 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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a whole lot of incoming page links. The category it is in is also wrong. People could easily find the article trauma center instead if they just typed it into the search box. Furthermore it creates more cases such as Level I Trauma Center, Level I trauma center, Level IV Trauma Center, Level IV trauma center, etc. Call me! My master! 07:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - no policy compliant reason for deletion specified in the nomination; the number of incoming links is not relevant to redirects. This is correctly targeted, not confusing and 200+ hits per month show that it is both plausible and used. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

That cold place[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 Delete, G3 by Nyttend. Lenticel (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Need I say more? Ucucha 03:27, 4 October 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_October_4&oldid=1049660456"