Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 March 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 22, 2013

Program logic[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) 17:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose the deletion of this redirect because it makes no sense: a program logic is a logic for reasoning about programs, whereas logic programming is a particular way of programming based on logic. Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk) 20:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:45, 22 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.

The Fuzz(Movie)[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) 17:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deletion for this redirect, as it is inaccurate, or at best ambiguous. There is no indication that Hot Fuzz has ever been referred to as "The Fuzz", yet there exists Fuzz (film) from 1972, "The Fuzz" listed in IMDB from 2010 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1726886/), and a 2012 video on YouTube listed as "The Fuzz - Trailer", billing a human-and-puppet movie. Morfusmax (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Note the RfD notice was not added to the nominated page until today
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not known by this title. Siuenti (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm unconvinced by the IMDB listings but I see no reason to have one not all that close title claim the search. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading and a potential WP:REDLINK. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 29 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.

Pink Friday: The Pinkprint (album)[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) 03:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Deletion, as this album has not been officially announced and is pure speculation at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRedactor (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close, possibly send to WP:AFD; this is not a redirect, or at least its status as a redirect is contested. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete It may be a likely search term if it's a rumored album. But it's not mentioned at the target, so I'm ok with deleting this until such time as the album may materialize. --BDD (talk) 21:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mendaliv. There's been a solid effort to make this an article, to the point where this redirect hasn't been appropriately listed or relisted. It's liable to be of use, albeit probably as a redirect, but the history is worth keeping. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:34, 1 April 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.

Pink Friday: The Re-Up[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) 22:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Deletion, as this is not the official name of the album, nor is it a likely search term that one may confuse it with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiRedactor (talk • contribs) 22:18, 11 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 22 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.

Batum[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 a redirect. There is clear consensus that "Batum" should redirect to Batumi, and that the dab page should be at Batum (disambiguation). A dab page has been created at "Batum" so to keep this with its history I've moved that page to "Batum (disambiguation)" and adjusted the resulting redirect accordingly. Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see all pages with Batum in the name so that an appropriate disambiguation page could be made. Hoops gza (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment be WP:BOLD and disambiguate the page -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made a Dab for it.--Lenticel (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleaned up the dab. Base name could be a surname article instead with a hatnote to Batumi. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. I see no discussion whatsoever here about what the primary topic of the name is, nor do I see any evidence that either the basketball player or the academic is referred to solely by that name with enough frequency to challenge the city. However, I do see dozens of incoming links referring to the city, which indicate settled expectations that the city is the primary topic of the term. All of this can be settled by moving the disambig to Batum (disambiguation) and having a hatnote on Batumi that points there. bd2412 T 00:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep redirect, put dab page at Batum (disambiguation) and hatnote the Batumi article. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 22 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.

Homo sapiens palestinus[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 "Homo sapiens palestinus" and Delete "Homo sapiens sapiens palestinus". Although both consensus are week there seems to be agreement to this course of action from the original nominator and I don't think that a second relisting will bring significant new input. Two alternatives for the new target for H. s. p. were presented, I've chosen Skhul and Qafzeh hominids based on the lead paragraph being about hominids rather than about a cave site. This should not be taken as a recommendation for or against either target in any subsequent discussion though. Thryduulf (talk) 04:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be misnomers that might be CSDs. I bring them here because the creating editors appear to be good-faithers, and they might have some reason for initially creating them. I can find no sources for these nomenclatures. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 17:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then it seems you've missed Google. One of the first results givesthe author: http://www.biolib.cz/en/taxon/id32401/ FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books: http://www.google.dk/search?q=homo+palestinus&btnG=S%C3%B8g+i+b%C3%B8ger&tbm=bks&tbo=1&hl=da FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I missed it because I searched for the page name. I knew your heart was in the right place, but isn't that not only a controversial nomenclature, but even moreso when you target the Cro magnon page? The closest page I could find for it to target was the Zuttiyeh article. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 17:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it controversial? I think you're reading too much into a mere redirect. I'm more interested in paleontology than politics, and I recall those names were simply on a list of missing paleontology articles. At the time, that page was the closest fit, from the info I could find. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel the same as you as regards interests. The name is controversial because it shows up in the WP search engine dropdown box when one searches for "Homo sapiens". That's how I came across both of these redirects. Now if you put aside your disinterest for a moment and put yourself in the shoes of someone who just might be offended by your connection between "Palestinian" and "Cro magnon", can you understand? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The name is also controversial because it's not a recognized scientific nomenclature. You found the sources you cited above by searching Google for "Homo palestinus". I searched Google for "Homo sapiens palestinus" and got zip. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)PS. Well, not really "zip". However the links I did find seemed to indicate that H. s. p. was not yet an officially recognized trinomial nomenclature.
Well again, those names were from a list I had no hand in creating, which was based on an encyclopaedia or something. I've made several other redirects based on that list. As for where it should redirect to, I believe it was used for Cro Magnon specimens, so it should either redirect there, or to something specific about the provenance of the fossils. Either way, it should be based on the sources, not our political preferences. As for it showing up in the search bar, is that a seriously problem? I gather your issue is with the word "Palestine" being implied. Wikipedia is not censored. I'll let others decide, but I frankly find the concern silly. If there was a "Homo sapiens israelensis" or something, I doubt you'd see anyone complaining. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a valid opinion. The redirect pagename just doesn't appear to be a very good search term. As I said, the closest I could come were the finds at Galilee. I was able to come up with a few non-scholarly sites that referred to them as "Galilee Man" and even fewer that called them "Palestine Man". Correct me if I'm wrong, but those are the only ones of hominids that have thus far been found anywhere in Western Asia, right? And those are thought to probably be H. heidelbergensis. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that both Neanderthals and early modern humans have been found throughout the Levant and Anatolia. There are definite Neanderthal burial grounds in Israel. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course, my bad. The Zuttiyeh article indicates the Galilee skull was "the first" hominid found in Western Asia. That's my limited background in the subject showing. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 19:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I will notify the paeloentology wikiproject about this discussion as it would benefit from subject matter expertise. Comments from other users are still most welcome also.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • maybe repoint? I see siginificant hits for "Homo sapiens palestinus" even in GScholar. I don't know the field that well so I'm unable to give an opinion on how valid the current target is, but the fact of use means it really ought to point somewhere. Mangoe (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting, I actually did retarget both of these already. Before the present target they both pointed to Cro-Magnon Man. I still think they may have been placed on the list mentioned above as a prank. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 17:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Retarget to Skhul and Qafzeh hominids (or Es Skhul which will theoretically be merged into the former). This gives Es Skhul (by various spellings) as the site where the lectotype was found, and seems at least more plausible than Cro Magnon or Zuttiyeh. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    These really should be deleted as prank/vandal redirects. Unless anyone can find a reliable source that these pseudo-multinomials even exist in the scientific world, they have no place on Wikipedia, they have no business being targeted to any page. – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 14:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. The source you gave appears reliable, but it's the first one I've seen. The lists of one scientist does not authenticate a scientific term. Nor is there anything about H.s.s.p. in that source.
    Delete Hssp, retarget Hsp? ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Amory, that will probably be the way this discussion goes; however, a "passing mention" of a trinomial like H.s.p. by one scientist in his paper, without any explanation whatsoever about what it means or to which fossil(s) it points, doesn't really give us much more than a vague reason to target any article, even the "Skhul and Qafzeh hominids" page, does it? – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:26, 3 April 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.

Young Artist Awards 1978[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Young Artist Awards ceremony pages were improperly created and were moved (by me) to the proper titles a couple of years ago. I usually don't mind redirects, but all these redirects beginning with "Young Artist Awards (year)" is cluttering the search box with drop-down suggestions, making it difficult for the reader to locate the valid articles associated with the award. I'm willing to fix any backlinks linking to these pages and to create an alternate series of redirects ("1980 Young Artist Awards", "1981 Young Artist Awards", etc) following the same MOS used for Academy Awards articles, but I don't want to start doing that until these are deleted. Crakkerjakk (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm new at this, I'd actually like to bundle my nomination, but I'm not sure how, so I've simply included a list above of all the current redirects that are contributing to the problem. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries Crakkerjakk, I went ahead and fixed the listing. For information on how this was done, please refer to WP:RFD#HOWTO. Steel1943 (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I may have even created a lot of these pages (after I moved the ones that had already been created) thinking it seemed like a good idea to have them since a lot of people would likely be searching by year. It's just in the last couple of weeks that I realized the problem it creates with cluttering the drop-down search suggestions. Like I said, I'll be happy to create alternate redirects that begin with the year ("1979 Young Artist Awards", "1980 Young Artist Awards", etc), which is the MOS used for redirects to the Academy Awards ceremonies (I'm guessing someone may have realized the same problem it created having dozens of redirects that begin with "Academy Awards (year)"). So yeah, I definitely see the value in creating redirects by year for this type of thing, but I just thought I should mention many of these may have been created by me, in case being the original creator helps speed up the process. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we definitely need to keep Young Artist Awards (plural) as a redirect, as well as numerous other redirects like Youth in Film Award, Youth in Film Awards, etc (Steel1943 has already had a glimpse of the complicated web of redirects and can testify to hearing more than he ever wanted to regarding the complex justification behind them).. There have been name changes to the Association over the last 35 years, as well as to the Award it bestows, and the scholarship fund it grants, so there are various redirects (many of which I created), which are valid (for various reasons that would take way too long to explain here). The only redirects that I'm nominating are the ones listed above. Everything else associated with the award is a valid redirect (at least the ones I'm aware of), so my intention was for this discussion to be limited only to the ones listed above (just please don't make me explain.. lol.) The MOS I've tried to follow is essentially the same one used for the Academy Awards articles (operating under the presumption that the MOS used for the Academy pages has already been thoroughly discussed and vetted), so I'm hoping there shouldn't be anything controversial about this proposal. --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 08:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Please could commenters now focus on whether they support or oppose the deletion of the explictly nominated redirects above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep {{R from other name}} and {{R from move}}. These are vary vary plausible. If there are problems with the search box, we should fix them by fixing the search box, not by breaking otherwise good redirects. Deleting these would set a dangerous president. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Emmette. These are very likely search terms. Say I want to look up a particular iteration of the awards. Am I more likely to know the year in which it was held or the numeration? --BDD (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like I said. I saw the usefulness of using dates when I was moving the pages (and subsequently created the others to have a complete set). All I'm proposing is changing Young Artist Awards 1979 to 1979 Young Artist Awards the same way the Academy Awards redirects are formatted. If listing the name of the award first, with date last, is so crucially important, can someone please explain to me why this format has apparently been disregarded for use on all Academy Award ceremony articles? If no valid explanation for that can be provided, then could someone at least explain how we are supposed to "fix" the search box? --- Crakkerjakk (talk) 09:45, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But Redirects are cheap. This set of them doesn't preclude you from creating one with the year first. As they could still be helpful to readers, why not keep them? --BDD (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same way the search box drop down list was created in the first place, update the MediaWiki software. Perhaps make an option to exclude a redirect from the drop down list. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:54, 1 April 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.

Natalia (TV Series)[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) 17:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article was created for a fictional character but title suggests it is a TV series. Nobody is going to look this title up. JDDJS (talk) 16:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Natalia is a minor three-shot character in that series, and won't be coming back. Nate • (chatter) 22:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Misleading, there is no TV Series by the name of "Natalia" covered in the target. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:48, 25 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.

List of schools in Haiti[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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 22:50, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Schools" should not redirect to "colleges." Almost no country should have a "List of Schools."

The redirect is misleading. There are 14,000 schools in Haiti, most of which are [WP:NN]]. When I first tried to delete this article, I was assured that I could "quick delete" it, and my Xfd was declined on that basis. But my "quick delete" was quickly declined. Back to the drawing board! Student7 (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article/list is over six years old, and until the last week or so it was at the 'schools' name. The submitter above removed the little non-college content and moved the article to the current name. I have no comment pro or con on the update or the rename. But when such a long term article is move/renamed, a redirect needs to be left in place. There are a couple of dozen internal links to the old name. Those could be fixed. But it's much more difficult to know how many external links exist to the old name. Given the long history at the old name, I think that the redirect really needs to remain. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:09, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revert page move. There is no evidence that the list of colleges is a list of tertiary education institutions. Indeed, by clicking on the links to "college"s articles, some of them are primary and secondary schools. So this is association by shared name, not be defining characteristic. The person who moved the page totally missed the fact that "college" doesn't mean tertiary education institution. If the page mover wanted a separate tertiary education list, then they should have split the list. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is no requirement that any Wikipedia list article be comprehensive, indeed, most lists have the requirment that list entries be in some way notable, so it doesn't matter if there are 14000 schools in Haiti, only notable ones would enter the list. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:25, 26 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.

Infobox country[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) 17:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to have this redirect in the article namespace since "Infobox country" is not a plausible article search and articles should just use {{Infobox country}}. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 09:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. A redirect from article space to a template can occasionally be useful (e.g. a navigation template can function like a list or disambig page in some circumstances). Infobox Spain (for example) would not be a completely implausible search for finding the quick information about Spain, but why not just go to Spain, where it is prominent anyway? Anyway, this just takes you the empty framework of an infobox, not a box containing information so I can't see what benefit it would bring to readers. Thryduulf (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete XNR -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:R#D6. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 15:58, 25 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.

Infobox aircraft[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) 17:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to have this redirect in the article namespace since "Infobox aircraft" is not a plausible article search and articles should just use {{Infobox aircraft}}. The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 09:00, 22 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.

Benedict XVI[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 Withdrawn. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at WP:naming conventions (clergy) recently changed. articles about popes should no longer have pope included in article title, except as any other article would. it is obstructing a page move. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, no consenus has changed. Consensus on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI after half a dozen discussions recently is that we do not move the article anywhere. Mocctur (talk) 05:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment if you requested move succeeds, an admin will delete the redirect when the page is moved, if it does not, then the redirect will need to exist. In any case, if this is not a speedy delete case, then it should be deleted through RFD, as there are already objections to the rename filed on the talk page. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep end run around requested move process. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • withdraw this was premature, and the IP above is correct. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 14:10, 22 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_22&oldid=1141906350"