Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 11, 2011

Wikipedia:Wikiportals[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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low traffic, implausible redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep seems likely, since some people still call those things "Wikiportals". 65.94.71.179 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What is wrong with it? →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, perfectly plausible redirect. It is used. It's doing no harm. Why would we want to delete it? Thryduulf (talk) 01:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The history shows that the redirect was created as part of a pagemove dispute back in 2005. Since then, however, it has existed without causing any apparent confusion or conflict. The name, while maybe not ideal, is certainly plausible. Low traffic is explicitly not a valid reason to delete. Rossami (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Wikiportal Browse[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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low traffic, cross-namespace redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. This is the result of a page move back in 2005, so it was obviously a very useful redirect at the time of it's creation. There's still a few people who use it, but only a few so I'm undecided about it's continued usefulness. I don't see Wikipedia: to Portal: CNRs as being harmful ones at all as there is very low risk of confusion, and anyone using it will be familiar with the difference between namespaces and between editor-facing and reader-facing content, which is why article to wikipedia CNRs can be a bad thing. Thryduulf (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary and cross-namespace. Mhiji 03:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is where the content existed before the creation of the Portal namespace. It was clearly useful and remains marginally useful today, especially to those of us who are investigating page histories. There is no potential for confusion here and being "unnecessary" or "low traffic" is not a valid reason to delete. Rossami (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Portal:List[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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low traffic, implausible redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Grant Harris[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 WP:CSD#G3 vandalism. JohnCD (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Grant Harris? If he is notable, for example, if he did significant medical or academic research on the subject matter, then please write a well-sourced article explaining his contributions. If he is not notable, then please delete. Bwrs (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This originally pointed at Hypochondriac (it was retargetted by a bot avoiding double redirects), so as Grant Harris is not mentioned in the article, and creating this redirect was the sole contribution of its creator, I'm guessing it was an attack (or intended humour) against someone the creator knows/knew personally. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy-delete as long-overlooked vandalism. The creator's contribution history and the prior history of the page make clear that this was an attempt to malign probably a classmate. Rossami (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, evidently vandalism. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 12:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Broker - Village in the Outer Hebrides of Scotland[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. OK, it was five years old and for some strange reason CSD R3 has "recent" in it, even so I would have tried to speedy it first. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Highly unlikely search target with no history. Ben MacDui 19:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ben MacDui, possibly the least likely search term I've seen here. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Abdul Khaliq (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 speedily deleted under WP:CSD G6, redirect to an article, not a disambiguation page.

Delete. The target article is a given name article and not a disambiguation page. Disambiguation is provided through a hatnote and no separate disambiguation page exists or is required. This redirect has no target to point to and cannot be converted into a regular page, and therefore should be deleted. MegaSloth (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Isotopia Festival[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. Mhiji 18:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate and useless cross-namespace redirect. meco (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Inappropriate and useless cross-namespace redirect.--MegaSloth (talk) 13:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems to have been created due to some sort of history merge, based on the history, but it contains only that single entry before being nominated for deletion. Possible WP:CSD#G6 candidate, but I'm not 100% sure on that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary and cross-namespace. Mhiji 04:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shitty link[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  狐 FOX  01:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems like nothing more than gratuitous vulgarity. bd2412 T 04:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Delete redirected term not disambiguated at target disambiguation page. No clear alternative target exists. Given these facts, appears to be simple profane vandalism. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Red links[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 as it appears that this page has never had any substantial content. So, nothing was, in fact, moved to Wikipedia:Red_link. Ruslik_Zero 20:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could have sworn I read a lengthy debate about whether "red links" should, in fact, be a red link, but apparently it must have been at someplace other than XfD, because my G4 speedy was declined. Regardless, this has been a red link from 2007 until last week, when a redirect to Wikipedia:Red link was created. The intent of this RfD is to turn red links back to red. 28bytes (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A little history G4 would have been quite inappropriate, because the lengthy debate was definitely over another title. "Red links" has been deleted twice before: by Freakofnurture on 1 August 2006 with no explanation or rationale, and by JamesR on 30 December 2007 under A1. "Wikipedia:Red link" was created at that title in 2004 and was moved to its present title on 23 March 2004; from then until Freakofnature came along and deleted it apparently without any basis in policy, this title was a redirect like it is now. Doncram recreated it with the text of "what does stubify mean?" on 30 December 2007, and it was properly deleted six minutes later. Nyttend (talk) 02:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CSD#G4 specifically states "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion" (mine bolded for emphasis). That being said, if there was such a discussion regarding red link, this redirect would similarly qualify for G4. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the case of redirects, the only content is the title itself, and "link" and "links" are substantially different enough that neither can qualify for deletion solely on the grounds of the other being deleted. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnecessary cross namespace redirect, only recently created. Also note Red link does not exist and is salt protected. Mhiji 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • and salt. Mhiji 04:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt protect. Unnecessary cross namespace redirect whose existence disrupts Wikipedia. Should be salt protected under same rationale as red link. --MegaSloth (talk) 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt Per MegaSloth. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and restore the history. This is where the Wikipedia page was written before the creation of the separate namespaces (and long before the MediaWiki software was changed to document pagemoves in the moved page's history). This may now be the only record of that original title. Note: Red link is consistently deleted (and has now been salted) because we need it to stay blank as an example used in several of the Wikipedia Help pages. That reasoning does not apply to this link. The Help pages only reference the singular. Rossami (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; salt. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per precedent established by red link being salted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • But that precedent does not apply. Red link (singular) is used on several different Help pages and needs to be maintained as an uncreated page for the examples to make sense. No article has ever existed at that title. Red links (plural), on the other hand, is not used on any of those example pages and has relevant history behind it. Rossami (talk) 17:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep red links and re-create red link. Dead link is not dead. If you need to put a red link, use: [[sdiufjiusdjfoisifj|red link]]. emijrp (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The alias trick was tried several times but 1) some new users created a page there anyway - usually as tests but still disrupting the teaching point until the test could be again deleted and 2) it confused other users who cracked open the Help page to see what the wikicode really looked like. Leaving red link (singular) as an uncreated page has proven to be the better answer over time. Dead link, of course, refers to the general problem of internet link rot and is unused on our Help pages. Rossami (talk) 04:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per TenPoundHammer. If GFDL requires it be kept somewhere, move it without redirect to Wikipedia:GFDL/File required for copyright/Red links, or something like that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2011 (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/2011_January_11&oldid=1141906563"