Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 27, 2011

Michelle McGee[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 --Taelus (talk) 12:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or retarget. Subject of the redirect is not mentioned anywhere in the target page. bd2412 T 20:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Delete - unreliably sourced tales of an affair, for example here. Never been in the article so far as I can tell. Confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jerry Thomas Hunter[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 as redirects with possibilities. Relevant information can be merged from the history as appropriate. --Taelus (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is not even mentioned in the target article, making the reason for the redirect incomprehensible Yworo (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both - if you look here, it is not such an incomprehensible redirect. Rather than delete the redirect what we should do is merge a reference to this guy into the page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Going the extra mile[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 Matthew 5:41, info is already there: «This verse is the origin of the English phrase "going the extra mile"». Nabla (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't mean the same thing at all! Redirect should be deleted unless someone can create an article on this phrase. Doug.(talk • contribs) 13:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to retargeting and agree that the current target may be better as a redirect as suggested by User:Peter E. James, below. I agree the saying is non-trivial, but non-trivial doesn't mean we direct it anywhere distantly related.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 08:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly misleading redirect. i kan reed (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - though the target's title does mean something different from the redirect, the article explains the meaning of the redirect hence it is a useful search term. When we have something sensible to say we should make it as easy as possible to find. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "If someone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles" is the source of the aphorism. Redirects are cheap. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect is misleading, as the two phrases are different topics, but useful, as it explains the phrase. One solution is to add the information to Matthew 5:41, which is the source of the phrase, and retarget (and possibly merge Turning the other cheek to Matthew 5:39 for the same reason). Another is to rename Turning the other cheek, and make it into an article not just about the one phrase, but I'm not sure what the title would be, or whether it could be a separate topic and not just a duplicate of Sermon on the Mount, Christian nonviolence or the verses of the Gospel of Matthew. Peter E. James (talk) 19:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Matthew 5:41 and add the info there; nontrivial as a popular expression originating in the verse. bd2412 T 01:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Retarget as suggested by BD2412. absolutely relevant, as a common phrase. It is indeed misleading as written--it would be used in different circumstances colloquially, and its original meaning was different--see that article. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as suggested by BD2412 - good call! Arbitrarily0 (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Matthew 5:41; I am persuaded! :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Walter bauer[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) 12:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is not needed now that it points to the main Walter Bauer article and there are disambiguation pages set up.

  • Keep name capitalization redirects are a very common and useful kind. What harm is this doing? i kan reed (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - doesn't meet any of the deletion criteria. Harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ikanreed and Bridgeplayer.--Lenticel (talk) 00:52, 1 August 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_July_27&oldid=1138577770"