Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 28[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 28, 2011

John Berry (musician)[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 until John Berry (violinist) is created. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete misleading redirect. Orphaned in articles name space. According to John Berry dab page, the lemma should be reserved for an other musician (violinist). FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep until an article is made on the violinist. If you're trying to make an article on the violinist, you can just overwrite the redirect without deleting it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of that, but I have no intention to do so, as I have got no information about that man. If anybody wants to try, here is where to start investigating. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 23:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - to be fair, the dab page entry for the violinist was only added within the last couple of days so it has hardly had time to become established. What happened here was that the John Berry (singer) article was created at John Berry (musician) and a redirect was left when the page was moved in October 2008. It is, I agree, misleading since the singer doesn't play any instrument and a red link looks the correct solution per WP:REDLINK. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. An article about the Barcus-Barry cofounder might of course also be called John Berry (violinist). But in that case, the redirect should also be deleted or converted into a dab page, as we then have two articles about musicians of that name, but there is already a dab page. - BTW: John Berry (singer) says he also plays acoustic guitar. --FordPrefect42 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 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.

Template:Japanese/Help[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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross name space redirect. —Farix (t | c) 22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English WP is not Japanese WP, and this does not belong here. Neither the one below, "Nihongo", which is Japanese for 'Japanese. Both shoud go. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Nihongo/Help[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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross name space redirect. —Farix (t | c) 22:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)#[reply]

Go, as discussed above, unhelpful redirect. Si Trew (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unused cross name space redirect. JIMp talk·cont 12:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Manga cover fur/doc[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 now that we're here, delete. However, Farix's point should be minded in the future. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation redirect - No incoming links... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is there really a need to delete redirects that were created as part of an ill-advised page move? Also, as stated at the top of WP:RfD, redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. I also don't see how the deletion rational meets any of the criteria for deleting redirects. —Farix (t | c) 22:34, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bottom line as I see it is that this is a useless redirect however you slice it. It's a documentation subpage for a template that was also recently moved. The redirect for the template itself has value. This one, however, is pointless to keep around. The fact that we're already expended this much effort discussing a pointless redirect kind of amazes me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:09, 29 July 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.

Template:Poster fur/doc[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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation redirect - No incoming links? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:22, 28 July 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.

Template:Poster fur/sandbox[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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to sandbox... No incoming links Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Vgboxart fur/doc[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 G7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation redirect - No incoming links (and usages of vgboxart fur should be migrated anyway)... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Video game cover fur/doc[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 by silent consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation redirect, Template redirected - No incoming links? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Video cover fur/doc[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 by silent consensus. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for template documentation - Nothing incoming here. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Icon fur/doc[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 G7, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect no longer needed as nothing links here directly now Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Icon fur[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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is no longer needed as nothing now links here directly. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's from a recent move, and the old title can be used as a shortcut. The new name, Template:Non-free use rationale icon, is misleading as looks like it should be an icon for use in non-free use rationale templates. Peter E. James (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the longstanding old title. The doc page we can drop the redirect for, but the main template, I'd be a little wary about deleting, especially since its existence does not hurt anything. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Santorum[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 with target to Rick Santorum. There is sufficient consensus below that the person is the primary topic, as all other disambiguation terms are linked to him. There is also consensus that the current disambiguation available is sufficient, as readers wishing to read related topics to the politician and other uses of the word Santorum can do so via clearly presented links in the current target. Meanwhile there is no consensus over whether the high google hits establish what is the primary topic, especially due to the googlebombing campaign. Meanwhile, arguments about the inclusion of this content at all belong at the AfD for the disambiguation page, and on relevant talk pages. In summary, there is consensus that in its current form the readers are provided with sufficiently easy navigation to all relevant topics. --Taelus (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change "Santorum" back to disambiguation page (Santorum (disambiguation)). Campaign for "santorum" neologism gets close to the hits that Rick Santorum does...AND we don't know how many people typed in "Santorum" looking for the sexual term as opposed to the person. Also Google results put the sex term first. CTJF83 12:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Absolutely not, for reasons that I wish were obvious to everyone. If they aren't, I commented at length on Talk:Santorum, I suppose if necessary I could copy those comments here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, can you provide reasons, instead of a link to a 2 year old discussion. CTJF83 13:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7 June 2011 is not two years ago. See Talk:Santorum#Expanded rationale. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, well since you originally didn't link to a thread, I looked at the wrong post. CTJF83 13:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well scanning that thread, it looks like you just took it upon yourself to change the redirect, because you didn't like it. BLP would only possibly come in to affect if I was proposing Santorum redirect to Campaign for "santorum" neologism, which I'm clearly not. Clearly a disambiguation page is the most neutral thing to link to, and rick's page would be at the top of said dab page....so your argument is pretty invalid. CTJF83 13:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Floquenbeam won't explain his argument, I'll put forth my interpretation of his argument, and Floquenbeam, you can correct me if I'm wrong. WP:BLP trumps all other policies, guidelines, and pillars of Wikipedia. WP:BLP overrules Wikipedia's duty to be an encyclopedia and to serve its readers. WP:BLP precludes anything that can be construed to harm a living person or his/her political, religious, or social interests, even at articles that are not biographies of that person, extending to all disambiguation pages, templates, and categories that link to a biography. Quigley (talk) 13:55, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above, "BLP would only possibly come in to affect if I was proposing Santorum redirect to Campaign for "santorum" neologism, which I'm clearly not." CTJF83 13:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds pretty reasonable to me. But then again, I don't feel really strongly about the issue, whereas some users will burst into tears at the thought of this change happening. Floquenbeam, if you have a conflict of interest relating to the Santorum 2012 campaign, please declare it. Quigley (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, here's a summary (with tweaks) of my comments at Talk:Santorum
  • There most certainly is a BLP issue in typing in a man's last name, and having a Googlebomb attack on him being a prominent link on the resulting page.
  • The meme that lots of people "outside the US", are more curious about the phrase than the man is unsubstantiated, and quite likely untrue. I certainly think the burden of proof that this is actually true rests with the people saying it, not with the people doubting it. But since I doubt it can be substantiated, either way, it's moot.
  • Per HW and FFFE below, when you weed out the "gutter blogs" (nice phrase, that) the vast majority of RS coverage of Santorum is not Googlebomb related. Google doesn't weed those out; but we do.
  • Rick Santorum is by definition the primary topic. The Googlebomb is targeted at him, all of the items on the dab page are related to him. If there were other people named Santorum with articles, then perhaps he wouldn't be the primary topic and having this be the disambiguation page would make sense (see McCain or Kerry or even Clinton), but that isn't the case here.
--Floquenbeam (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change. This disambiguation page was stable until the unilateral actions of Floquenbeam, which promote an article that is clearly not the primary topic at the expense of other articles readers frequently seek out. Quigley (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change. It became extraordinarily clear in the underlying discussion on the contentious neologism that the supposed "term" had negligible use outside the partisan campaigning. The handling here parallels the handling of "Lewinsky", and is quite appropriate and enjoys consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change per Hullabaloo and Floquenbeam. BLP and prominence issues at play here. Dreadstar ☥ 21:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm tired of this stupid "BLP" argument...there is no BLP issue when it links to a freakin dab page!!! CTJF83 23:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change per Hullabaloo and Floquenbeam. And or the same reasons we don't have "Obama" as a disambiguation page with links to Barack Obama, Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, Presidency of Barack Obama, etc. Nor does it link to the "Obama (disambiguation) page which actually has notable "Obamas" not related to Barack. All the links in Santorum (disambiguation) are related to Rick Santorum and are appropriately addressed through links within the Rick Santorum article. Rlendog (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change. A presidential candidate is much more notable than any of the others. Google searches don't give us much useful information, given that there was a concerted and successful campaign to make the slang term prominent in search results. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change Outside of the USA, a former senator with presidential ambitions is not very notable, whereas the google-bomb campaign is. In addition, it is a family name, and is not owned by the former senator.93.96.148.42 (talk) 23:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that all the "Santorums" listed in the disambiguation page are related to this not very notable former senator, including the google-bomb campaign. Rlendog (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • To support the above, "Who's Winning: Savage. Google and its algorithm have spoken. Santorum even admits that his "children cannot Google their father's name"--which means that Savage has had enough support to keep his viral prank running for eight years, from 2003 to the present. While a lot of what Savage says strays into questionable and crass territory, people find its sense of humor and rally behind that. Santorum, on the other hand, is having a hard enough time convincing people in his own party to like him. He is barely getting by--both in votes and dollars--which, if he plans to make a serious run in 2012, is a little more troublesome than his current "Google Problem."" http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/07/santorums-children-cant-google-his-name-savage-keeps-going/40462/ 93.96.148.42 (talk) 00:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes. The prank has gotten a lot of mileage and Santorum's presidential campaign seems to be floundering. But by your logic, when Santorum's children type their last name into Wikipedia, they will get the article about this prank along with the article about their father. Which then gets back to the BLP concerns. If anyone wants to get to the article about the prank - which is a prank related to the person - they can type Santorum, go to the the Rick Santorum article, and get to the article about the prank through the link there. Rlendog (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are no BLP concerns, and if there were, the children would be irrelevant. The issue is a simple disambiguation between a minor US politician, and an important web 2.0 campaign to define Santorum.93.96.148.42 (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm not sure how the campaign is important if the politician motivating it is not. But if the issue is a simple disambiguation, then the word "Santorum" properly redirects to the person, and people interested in the "campaign" can either type in or use a Google link to "Campaign for 'santorum' neologism" (which includes the important word "campaign" as well as a non-capitalized "santorum" (I'm not sure why you capitalized it above unless you meant the campaign is to define the politician) or reach that page via the article on the politician that inspired this important campaign, Rlendog (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current redirect. If you search reliable sources, such as those found using Google News [1], instead of gutter blogs, it's clear this is the primary meaning. FuFoFuEd (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change as the purpose of redirects and dab pages is to serve the reader, not some politician's desires. To that end, the Obama direct mentioned above might also be turned into a dab page like Clinton or Bush, if that's an additional concern. There is no BLP issue at play here. - Dravecky (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change, mainly per Rlendog's argument that "Obama" links to the president's page and not a disambiguation page. Also, there is a hatnote at the top of the Rick Santorum article which reads "'Santorum' redirects here. For other uses, see Santorum (disambiguation)," so it will not be too difficult to find other "Santorum" pages if the reader didn't intend to read the former senator's article. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change back As a candidate Rick Santorum is at the bottom. The neologism has been more popular than this politician's last name and will most likely be after the candidate for his party is chosen. --Vizcarra (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current redirect. The neologism is probably only popular because of the presidential campaign, and only seems to be mentioned in the news in coverage of the politician. Peter E. James (talk) 07:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change. More and more visitors, especially from outside the US, are looking for the neologism. --Bkeast (talk) 08:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC) — Bkeast (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Oppose change: Everything on the disambiguation page is about the senator anyway. –CWenger (^ • @) 22:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm highly suspicious of those voting to oppose the change, because of the emotionality involved. I'm also, of course, suspicious of the motives for change (especially coming from a user with a rainbow name... ah yes, "proud to be Gay"). How would people be voting (for lack of a better word) if there weren't politics and emotion involved? As Wikipedia editors, we are derelict in our duty to the encyclopedia and its public if we let emotion influence our decision making. This is especially true when Wikipedia policy can't protect from such emotion, and I bet this is one of those cases. It may be that the other uses link on Rick Santorum is sufficient. But what if we distinguished between capitalization of "santorum" versus "Santorum?" Is that technically possible? I hereby slap everyone here (besides myself of course) with a trout. BE——Critical__Talk 23:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change This is an encyclopedia, not ED or some campaign-of-the-moment meme collection. Topics are not based on because it exists it must be included, and while it is clear that the neologism campaign has been successful, this is not the place to pursue the battle. Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related discussion: I've nominated Santorum (disambiguation) for deletion. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is an encyclopedia, not the Urban Dictionary. This proposal is especially poorly timed because of the 2012 presidential campaign. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change, per Floquenbeam and Hullabaloo. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to disambig page as before. This redirect smacks of political censorship. I came to the page looking for the old article on santorum, not for the guy, and it was pretty well hidden. Dicklyon (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a link to the disambig page right on top of the Rick Santorum page. Plus a link to the neologism within the Rick Santorum article. Not at all hard to find. Rlendog (talk) 01:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • RESTORE disambiguation page to the way it was before. as distasteful as some find it, the fact remains that the term requires disambiguation. -badmachine 08:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC) after considering this, i believe that this should redirect to the congressman, with a hatnote at the top for the neologism. hence:[reply]
  • OPPOSE CHANGE as long as a hatnote to the neologism is included at the top. -badmachine 05:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change. First, I think most people get to these articles via a link on Google rather than the Wikipedia search box, so we're not talking big numbers here. If this change were implemented, those searching Wikipedia for the neologism would find it more quickly (2 clicks instead of 3), and those searching for the senator would have to click an extra link to get to Rick Santorum (2 clicks instead of 1). Since neither article is obviously the more popular, a mechanical application of policy and simple logic clearly supports this proposed change.
Here, however, we are dealing with a quite unique personal attack, so a more subtle choice is in order. Presenting those searching for Rick Santorum with a link to Campaign for "santorum" neologism gives added prominence to the neologism, and giving increased prominence to the neologism makes us more complicit in the attack. We should avoid that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong. If I proposed a redirect to the sex term, you'd be right...but none of you opposers seem to understand linking to the dab page is the most neutral. CTJF83 12:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean your proposal would give the articles equal prominence. Presently, though they're probably equally popular, we give extra prominence to the senator's article. That's a good thing, as explained in my second paragraph. This situation requires more than simple arithmetic. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change. Even though I find Savage's campaign enormously amusing, spreading santorum is not Wikipedia's job: the current staus quo works well. -- The Anome (talk) 12:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is Without taking any position on the issue, or on any related issues for that matter, the less time we spend in discussing anything relating to this the better. Just as The Anome says, the status quo works well enough, and we have quite sufficient other things to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - seems to me the obvious solution for a word that is part of the name of several target articles, when there is disagreement as to what article someone searching with the term is most likely to be looking for. I'm not persuaded this should be a special case. WJBscribe (talk) 12:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point to neologism - Rick Santorum is a mere footnote in the presidential race. OK with disambiguation page as well.--Milowent • talkblp-r 04:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly the primary topic from which byproducts are derived. —Kusma (t·c) 08:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Change - per consideration already given to this issue. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep existing target. Redirecting to a list showing a person and an attack upon that person is not disambiguation, it is a list of related subjects where the person is clearly the primary topic. ~ Ningauble (talk) 16:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep existing target, for reason well expressed by Ningauble and others. A person and a campaign to scurrilize the person aren't separate topics. Eleuther (talk) 15:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Lebel and Berthier Rifles[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, relevant history has been merged. --Taelus (talk) 23:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling of Lebel and Bertheir Rifles, a redirect which was itself deleted. I only saw it in the deletion log after the discussion on other one was closed. FuFoFuEd (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Westfield Elementary School[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. See below. Ruslik_Zero 18:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many Westfield Elementary Schools, probably at least as notable as the one in Porterville, California. It seems unlikely someone from outside the Porterville area, searching on Westfield Elementary School, would be looking for this particular one. Peter Chastain (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to disambiguation page - the problem with deletion is that, as sure as eggs are eggs, pretty soon someone is going to come along and write an article for another 'Westfield Elementary School' and we are back to square one. Most elementary schools tend to be non-notable and they generally get merged into their school district. Such a DMB would, since we currently only have one actual article, therefore mostly point to the entries in the various district pages. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Bridgeplayer. Assuming they are notable at all (see WP:SCHOOL) I don't think any particular one could claim WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. So at best it should go to DAB Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 28 July 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.

Westfield Elementary[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 both redirects as confusing. The article that they pointed to has been turned into a redirect itself. Ruslik_Zero 18:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have renamed the target to Westfield Elementary School (Porterville, California) but prefer not to have redirects from Westfield Elementary School, because there are many schools with that name, and notability for this particular school has not been established. Peter Chastain (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a redirect to what I suggest, above, becomes a disambiguation page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree, it should actually go DEL Under WP:SCHOOL, but of course while this discussion is open I won't take BOLD and do that myself, but I think it should. I Also have a sticky space bar that is getting right on my ahem so please excuse my typos. Si Trew (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Simon, no elementary school is notable for an article, WP:AFD...perhaps a bold close of this and then we can start an AFD. CTJF83 13:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, can you list it at AfD then? For added fun, not only do I not have a working spacebar, I am on a Hungarian keyboard. Twice the fun (or not). Si Trew (talk) 22:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we should wait for this to close first, pending the outcome. CTJF83 23:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is right to wait. But I am being married next week, to User:Monkap, so am unlikely to be around for the AfD. Can you please express my view at the AfD, in my likely absence. Si Trew (talk) 06:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • ....Never been asked that, lol, I can point them to this. CTJF83 20:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've redirected the elementary school page back to the school district page, per general consensus with school articles. —mc10 (t/c) 15:55, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_28&oldid=1138577773"