Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 22, 2011

Toshiya Kuge[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable 9/11 victim. Article was previously deleted in 2004. Raises troubling slippery-slope concerns - every single victim of every single plane crash should not have a redirect to the appropriate "Crash of Flight ___" page, and there's nothing particularly outstanding about Ms. Kuge to warrant special treatment. Badger Drink (talk) 22:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirects are cheap If the person isn't notable, it would be fine to redirect to I related subject, IMO. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:29, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while redirects are cheap, my personal standard for this type of redirect is "would they merit a hatnote at the article about a notable person of the same name", and in this case the answer is "no". Why should one passenger have a link from their name to the article about the crash (in the form of a redirect), while the person sitting next to them doesn't because they happen to share their name with a notable person. Thryduulf (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was great debate over these redirects in the year after 9/11. On the one hand, Wikipedia is not a memorial and the many obituary-like entries did not belong in the encyclopedia and had to be tactfully removed. Redirects such as this were a polite way to "uncreate" an article about a non-notable victim without creating even more stress for the family. On the other hand, the need is now solidly in history and this was created as a redirect, not in response to a created-article.
    Personally, I would rather not reopen this debate and would like to continue quietly ignoring these redirects. If this is deleted, however, this is one of the rare circumstances where I think Wikipedia needs to be consistent and the other related non-notable content will need to be scrutinized. Mark Bingham was the first other inbound link I checked and is a good example. Rossami (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the one hand, Wikipedia is not a memorial, but on the other hand, we should look the other way when content is created in violation of that fundamental policy? Those two positions seem mutually exclusive. It's good to be polite, but if politeness concerns conflict with the goal of building a quality, reputable encyclopedia, we should always err on the side of the latter goal. To put it another way - it's not really polite to mention Bill Clinton's extramarital indiscretions, but failing to do so would make the Bill Clinton article incomplete. Thank you for bringing the Bingham article to my attention - you are correct, it does seem to fail notability as well, though I'll have to brush up on WP:ATHLETE before nominating it myself. Badger Drink (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If we do not have a meaningful quantity of information about a particular person or topic, then we should be direct with our readers about that fact. As a reader searching for information about a topic which is not covered in Wikipedia, I would much rather encounter a red link or a search results page than be redirected to an article which does not even once mention the topic which I searched or mentions it in passing only. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:55, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Snotrag[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. Lenticel (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be just general bitching about the Russian ruble, as opposed to a relevant redirect. "Snotrag" is not discussed in the article, and a web search didn't find this association made anywhere except the user-generated Urban Dictionary and, sadly, derivatives of Wikipedia [1]. This has been around since May 2007, but it has no history except as a redirect of this character. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Fair to say that the ruble isn't the most fantastic currency, but this is puerile, pointless POV-pushing. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In agreement with previous two commenters. — O'Dea 20:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Delete per the above comments. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:RPOTD/August 11, 2007[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 all. Ruslik_Zero 19:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirects, previous incomplete nominations. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No longer useful. I'd be tempted to G6 the lot, on the grounds of implausible CNR left behind from page move. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Redirects created by the pagemove process definitely do not qualify for speedy-deletion under the strict wording of G6. Redirects are automatically created by pagemove for a reason. Overturning that process-decision without obvious need (history-merge or to make way for article-content) may be justified but it is not "routine housekeeping". Rossami (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be pedantic, cleaning up of redirects left by page move vandalism does qualify for speedy deletion. In all other cases (including this one) you are absolutely correct. Thryduulf (talk) 13:32, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be more pedantic, cleaning up of redirects left by formal userfication also qualifies for speedy deletion. I don't know if these redirects qualify. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These cross-namespace redirects do not, as far as I can tell, serve a useful function (anymore, at least), and there is no need to keep them for their page history since a record of the pagemoves is preserved in the page histories of their targets. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Terminal (Jacksonville Skyway)[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 Withdrawn by myself →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:02, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, there are other terminals on on the JTA Skyway; (e.g. Rosa L. Parks/FCCJ (JTA Skyway) and Kings Avenue (JTA Skyway)) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:17, 22 January 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I withdraw this nomination. It appears that it was formerly named Terminal station. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.[reply]

Votermarch.org[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. Lenticel (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally a redirect to Voter March (G7 deleted, the creator blanked it after it was PRODded as non-notable), a bot changed the target to Protest to fix a double redirect (Voter March must have been redirected there and later reverted). The organisation/site does not seem to be notable and the target article doesn't mention it, so this is not a useful redirect. January (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No specifically relevant article to redirect to, subject not notable. Rehevkor ✉ 14:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not relevant to the target article, and no suitable alternative target. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of nematodes in Malaysia[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. Thryduulf (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, as the redirect is not correct. The article was originally at list of nematodes in Malaysia, but even said in the text that it only included Sabah (a state of Malaysia). As the article only covers a part of Malaysia, it is misleading for the redirect to exist. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This was at the original title for over two years and getting over a hundred hits each month. you moved it a matter of minutes before nominating it, which is way too soon to be deleting a redirect following a page move. Even the quickest caches will take up to a day or so to catch up, the slowest may never. There was no discussion about it on the talk page either, so we need to leave time for all the established editors to find out what has happened. Even then, I think this will remain a useful title - until articles are written about List of nematodes in other Malaysian states it's doing no harm. When such articles are written it can be turned into a page linking to them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, nomination withdrawn. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:26, 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_22&oldid=1142587660"