Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 11

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2012

John Krogh

[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. JohnCD (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - Multiple redirects (with variations on name spellings) for survivors of an aircraft accident, no mention in article of the names of the survivors. Unlikely that multiple survivors are ever notable in aircraft accidents and no real encyclopedic reason to create redirects for them all. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:BLP1E, none of these persons are known except for the crash they were involved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)
  • Delete all. I think these are extensions of the precedent created after the Sept 11 tragedy where the victims' articles were by and large turned into redirects in order to preempt pages which failed WP:NOTMEMORIAL. 1) That was a weak precedent and 2) the precedent such as it was covered victims, not survivors. Rossami (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2012 (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.

Amistad (1841)

[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about this redirect. The title suggests it should redirect to La Amistad, but the famous mutiny on the ship happened in 1839, not 1841. The supreme court case about it United States v. The Amistad did happen in 1841, but this title is not the proper format for a court case. Perhaps it should be retargeted to the disambiguation page? It shouldn't be delete as the US v Amistad article was at this title for years. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:29, 11 April 2012 (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.

Kildow

[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 updated target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double Redirect. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 10:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have speedily updated the target as is normal practice for double redirects. This is without prejudice to another nomination if you want to propose deletion or pointing it at a different target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2012 (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.

Lindsey Kildow

[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Double redirect. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 10:33, 11 April 2012 (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.

Logitech mm50

[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 no prejudice to reverting to an article and then discussing that at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing about topic in target page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Per above. ~ ⇒TomTomN00 @ 10:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Per above" does not seem to make sense here. Was this a misplaced comment? Did you mean it to apply to the RfD nomination above (Lindsey Kildow)? Rossami (talk)
  • Keep. The article at this title was very recently turned into a redirect based on the opinion that the topic did not meet our notability criteria. The article itself dates back to 2007. I am neutral on the underlying article but 1) the practice of redirecting a non- or semi-notable sub-topic to the more notable parent is well-established and 2) I consider it a dangerous precedent when a page is turned into a redirect then promptly nominated for deletion because it's a "bad" redirect. If the underlying article should have been deleted, it should be reverted to that state and nominated for deletion on its own merits at AfD - not buried here. Rossami (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2012 (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.

Soylent pink

[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. JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See debate at Talk:Pink slime#Soylent pink Canuck89 (have words with me) 00:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • That doesn't really hold up, since both of their votes were based on there being no sources for the term, which I have very much proven otherwise in the section the nominator linked. SilverserenC 02:17, 18 April 2012 (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/2012_April_11&oldid=1142587596"