Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 6, 2012

GLOBE (Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment)[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. Ruslik_Zero 10:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a recently created redirect page resulting from a typo or misnomer which is implausible and not common, and not in another language. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Again, not recently created. Artifact of a pagemove of content that existed at that title for just over 2 years. No potential for confusion and not in the way of other content. Again, no reason to delete and create unnecessary link rot. Rossami (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The redir itself is recently created. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • (edit conflict) No, you continue to misunderstand that part of the policy. "Recently created" is a measure of how long the title has been a blue-link, whether because it had content or was a redirect. The longer a title was in either of those conditions, the more likely that readers and outsiders may have created links to the title. Moving a page does nothing to update those inbound links. Deleting the redirect breaks them all. This is called link rot and is an evil that we should not subject our readers to without good cause. Rossami (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then have the wording of the speedy deletion criteria reworded. Concerning ourselves with the link rot of other websites while overlooking potential advantages to WP is not how we should be making decisions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • The speedy deletion critera doesn't need rewording, it says "This criterion also applies to redirects created as a result of a page move of pages recently created at an implausible title." so it doesn't cover redirects created by pages moves from pages that are not recently created. What are the "advantages to WP" from deleting this redirect? Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. What matters is how recently the title was created and under no stretch of the imagination is March 2010 recent. Given that the content was at this title for over two years it's very likely there are incomming links from external sites. Given that there is no reason to delete this (it's not offensive, confusing or in the way) deletion would be harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What evidence so you have that not having the redir is "harmful". Without evidence it is only an opinion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Without this redirect in place it would make it more difficult for our readers to find the article they are looking for. Making things harder for our readers is contrary to our goals. Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strictly speaking, a redirect such as this is not actually necessary, but it isn't worth the trouble of deleting. Such nominations should be discourage as a waste of community resources. Put otherwise, why bother, when it would be better to work on articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 10 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.

The Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP)[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. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a recently created redirect page resulting from a typo or misnomer which is implausible and not common, and not in another language. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not recently created. Artifact of a pagemove of content that existed at that title since July 2006. No potential for confusion and not in the way of other content. Again, no reason to delete and create unnecessary link rot. Rossami (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The redir itself is recently created. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. The title is neither recently created nor implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was speedily deleted per the rationale of "a recently created redirect page resulting from a typo or misnomer which is implausible and not common, and not in another language." but restored. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strictly speaking, a redirect such as this is not actually necessary, but it isn't worth the trouble of deleting. Such nominations should be discourage as a waste of community resources. Put otherwise, why bother, when it would be better to work on articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attention Please. Should you not be more concerned that there are duplicate articles at The Pacific Regional Environment Programme and Pacific Regional Environment Programme? Secondarywaltz (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SOFIXIT! Actually I did just that. Anyways, you are right. There is a whole stack of stuff that it of far greater importance than arguing over redirects. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I would normally fix it. But there is so much other stuff going on and a subject I know nothing about, so I thought it should be left to more knowledgable editors to decide what to keep/merge/delete/redirect etc. Secondarywaltz (talk)
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.

Young Reporters for the Environment (YRE)[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. Ruslik_Zero 10:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as a recently created redirect page resulting from a typo or misnomer which is implausible and not common, and not in another language. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:15, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Not recently created. Artifact of a pagemove of content that existed at that title for two years. No potential for confusion and not in the way of other content. No reason to delete and create unnecessary link rot. Rossami (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The redir itself is recently created. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. The title is not recently created (and that's what matters), nor is it implausible. Thryduulf (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was speedily deleted per the rationale of "a recently created redirect page resulting from a typo or misnomer which is implausible and not common, and not in another language." but restored. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strictly speaking, a redirect such as this is not actually necessary, but it isn't worth the trouble of deleting. Such nominations should be discourage as a waste of community resources. Put otherwise, why bother, when it would be better to work on articles. DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 10 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.

Physical topology[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 Topology (disambiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing nomination on behalf of 123.236.57.79 below. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:03, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete physical topology redirection to topology as both terms are completely different .the physical topology is physical design of a network i.e. devices,nodes,location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.236.57.79 (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to network topology. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, probably retargetted, though. I am not yet convinced that "physical topology" is a topic limited to networks and electronic circuits. That is the dominant use showing up in google but internet search results have a documented bias in favor of computer-based uses of a term over other disciplines. Physical topology could also refer to the real world applications of more esoteric concepts such as point-set or algebraic topology. Topology (disambiguation) might be better (though that page needs a lot of improvement). Rossami (talk) 14:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Additional discussion on the best target would be beneficial here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 6 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.

~sabdfl[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. Although it should be noticed that there was no consensus its creation was vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 15:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SABDFL, an established redirect, is a useful redirect for Mark Shuttleworth but this one I do not think is. DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete redirect vandalism, tagged as CSD G3. ApprenticeFan work 12:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I just did, but restored on reflection - not sure about vandalism here...) A useless redirect, but I'm not sure about g3. Some of the author's contributions I would describe that way. Others. no. Peridon (talk) 14:35, 6 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.

Go0gle[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect, one of a long series--please see the users contributions page DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 6 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.

Money addict[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) 01:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of a string of useless redirects DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Could fit a lot of upper classes (and some of ours are broke anyway...) Peridon (talk) 14:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Affluenza, which is the target of the Wealth addiction redirect that I would have suggested as a target were it an article. Thryduulf (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a recognised term and no suitable target article. Current redir target is just plain wrong. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:27, 6 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.

Μακρόν[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of a string of useless redirects DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 6 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.

Ἐν Τούτῳ Νίκα[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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of a string of useless redirects vy the same editor DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete foreign alphabets are failed to rely on WP:UE. ApprenticeFan work 12:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only in Foreign, but apparently irrelevant. (Once again, I may be missing something. Be careful how you answer that...) Peridon (talk) 18:51, 6 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.

Wikipedia:R2R[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. Lenticel (talk) 01:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of a string of useless, derogatory, or racist redirects. (the worst of them have been speedy deleted as vandalism) DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I don't see how this one is at all harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless I'm missing something derogatory in it. Actually looks like a useful abbreviation. Peridon (talk) 14:37, 6 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_6&oldid=1138578047"