Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 10

March 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 10, 2013

Reba[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 boldly retarged to Reba (disambiguation) by Steel1943 due to reasons stated below. (Non-admin closure.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reba → Reba McEntire (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

I think that this is a bad redirect. There are several people with first name Reba in the Wikipedia, despite McEntire being the most known and somewhat known by her first name. Hoops gza (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note. From what I'm seeing on the article Reba McEntire, there is no hatnote to refer the editor to Reba (disambiguation) due to Reba redirecting there. There's one issue... Steel1943 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and edited the hatnote on Reba McEntire to have a reference to Reba (disambiguation). Not sure why that was not done. Steel1943 (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Move of Reba (disambiguation) to Reba. I was looking at the history of Reba, and it looks like back in October 2011, there was an editor who boldly moved all of the content from Reba to Reba (disambiguation). A month later, that editor was blocked for disruptive edits. I do not see any discussion on either Talk:Reba or Talk:Reba (disambiguation) or even Talk:Reba McEntire about such a move. With that being said, I'm going to work on reverting all of these seemingly disruptive bold edits. Steel1943 (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it looks like that editor did these edits by performing a copy and paste move ... which should have never been done as that disrupts article contribution histories. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the present time, I have redirected Reba to Reba (disambiguation) (since the true fix cannot be done without a problematic "copy-and-paste" move.) At this point, I'm going to close this RFD since this issue was caused by a editor who was bold and ended up being blocked due to disruptive edits. Steel1943 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2013 (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.

Modern Dharmic writers[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Dharmic writers → Indian religions (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The target article does not even use the word "writers", much less include information on "Modern Dharmic writers". Yworo (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete It's quite clear that this is a Wikipedia neologism which we shouldn't encourage. Mangoe (talk) 15:21, 12 March 2013 (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.

What is the buccal cavity[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 Speedy deletion/WP:SNOW deletion. "Buccal cavity" is a plausible search term, but not "What is the buccal cavity". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is the buccal cavity → Human mouth (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Unuseful redirect. (There is a redirect from Buccal cavity). —teb728 t c 06:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTFAQ. 82.132.217.233 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no point in having such an unlikely redirect. Ducknish (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NOTFAQ -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2013 (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:Anbiya[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Anbiya → Template:Islamic prophets (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

The redirect should be deleted and the reason is that there are no incoming links to the redirect as here. Ibrahim ebi (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. In fact, I went ahead and put a {{db-g6}} tag on the redirect to see if it qualifies. Steel1943 (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think so (so I declined it). Speedy has been rejected previously because unused redirect / template is not a reason to speedy delete, which seems correct to me. If you think you can claim another speedy deletion criteria other than "uncontroversial" - which it clearly is not, has it's history shows - then please say so. - Nabla (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. That, and no other speedy deletion criterion would apply to this redirect. I wasn't 100% sure if it did qualify for G6, which is the beauty of being able to have a second opinion. I still vote Delete, since this template is not used, is not transluded in any page, and is an orphan. Steel1943 (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2013 (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.