Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 14, 2011

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 no consensus to delete. Whether this should remain a redirect or become a disambiguation page can be discussed on the talk page or another appropriate venue, but there is no consensus to change the status quo on the basis of the comments below alone. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:COMMON[edit]

It's a redirect to a mere essay. A far better target would be WP:Common name with a hatnote on top for users who were looking for WP:Common sense). Marcus Qwertyus 19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really want to clutter up policy pages - particularly sections thereof - with irrelevant hatnotes? I would make this one a WP-space disambiguation page - several equally likely meanings, and avoids the need for hatnotes.--Kotniski (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. I count just under 1000 inbound links to this redirect, all apparently referring to the "IAR" essay. Disrupting all those links would not be in the best interests of our users. No objection to turning it into a disambiguation page, though, and referencing both potential targets. Rossami (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "Redirect to a mere essay" is not a problem, in itself. Shortcuts to essays are quite commonplace. The target is a section in a "top-impact" essay, as ranked by WikiProject Essays, and this mere essay is so prominent that it has longstanding links from numerous policy and guideline pages. Unfortunately, ILIKEIT too much to !vote impartially. ~ Ningauble (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The last I saw, WP:IAR is not an essay, and "exercising common sense" is most certainly an aspect of IAR. –MuZemike 16:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Your anus[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 as vandalism by Vejvančický and salted by me. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense/vandal redirect that has already been deleted a number of times. Wasell(T) 08:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy G3 and salt per nom. Mhiji 15:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Addery[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 and salt. Ruslik_Zero 17:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget or delete. This is just not a related term. bd2412 T 04:05, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete. The only google hits for the word "addery" appear to be usernames, so there is no relevant encyclopaedia article to retarget to. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's been around since 2005 and was created in order to stop a persistent creation and deletion of a "mispronounciation" definition page. It's probable that the original editor is gone by now but I'd rather tolerate the redirect than see the original content start reappearing. Redirects are easier to watchlist than deleted pages. As "keep" arguments go, though, please count this one as very, very weak. Rossami (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: "Redirects are easier to watchlist than deleted pages." is not entirely true. In addition to directly editing your watchlist, you can hit the "watch" star on the create page. No comment on whether it should be deleted or salted at this time. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Keeping vandalism just because the vandal may recreate it if it is removed gives the vandal a win and encourages future activities of that sort. bd2412 T 18:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Technically it hasn't been around since 2005, but it's been repeatedly recreated since 2005. This is a reason to salt the title, not keep the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MADEUP. No evidence of this term being used. Mhiji 01:12, 15 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_14&oldid=1144478565"