Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 December 28

December 28[edit]

AMA advocate → Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Members[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. -- Renesis (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could cause confusion, for example a user doing a search for "advocate" may get this page in the listings, think that it the "American Medical Association" and email one or two of the members listed there asking for help in a real life issue (as, by the by, happened to me :)). So, I suggest that is is deleted as a CNR and due to the confusion and potential distress it could cause (and the fact that it isn't even prefixed by "WP:" (for the redirect, we already have WP:AMAM). Thanks, M a rtinp23 22:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Confusing CNR. --- RockMFR 23:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as confusing and cross-namespace. --Rbraunwa 00:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an appropriate cross-namespace redirect. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all CNR -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 23:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as harmful/confusing CNR. Koweja 14:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as AMA Advocate, I say this is useless. --Neigel von Teighen 11:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per confusing. --Wizardman 02:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

1,500,000th article → Kanab ambersnail and 1500000th article → Kanab ambersnail[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. — Renesis (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two self-reference redirects similar (though not identical) to the deleted millionth article redirects to Jordanhill railway station. Precedent (and WP:ASR) seem clear enough that they should be deleted. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 16:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...again these sound familiar :-) Dar-Ape 19:42, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete both all the redirects calling Jordanhill railway station the millionth article were deleted and I see no reason why it should not be handled the same way here. --70.48.174.250 21:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent and policy in nom. Koweja 14:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. oTHErONE _(Contribs) 00:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'll keep i mind that it's article 1.5M, but there's certainly no need for a redirect. --Wizardman 02:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Daniel Day Luas pub crawl → Pub crawl[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. While redirects do discourage recreation of content, they should still be related to content at the target. If recreation becomes a problem, it can be salted. -- JLaTondre 00:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When pub crawl was cleaned up to remove non-notable/unsourced information about specific pub crawls, any mention of this crawl, which was deleted via AfD anyway was removed. As such, no redirect is needed, and neither is the edit history herein. In essence, there is no reason for every non-notable pub crawl to point to Pub crawl. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of the redirect is an appropriate follow-up to the removal of merged content from an article, except where the redirect itself is deemed helpful. In this case, the redirect prevents recreation of the article, so I'd say keep. BigNate37_(T) 20:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and inasmuch as, pace BigNate, I don't imagine that the discouragement of the recreation of a deleted article is a valid purpose to be served by the preservation of a redirect. One of the main unallayed concerns at the AfD seems to have been as to the unverifiability of anything substantive related to the DDL pub crawl, and so, whilst a redirect might be appropriate were the excision of the DDL information and ultimately the article itself to have been undertaken principally in view of notability concerns, the verifiability deficiency would seem to suggest that even a redirect ought to be disfavored. Joe 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dazed and Confused (disambiguation) → Dazed and Confused[edit]

The result of the debate was Kept & tagged {{R to disambiguation page}} per precedent. Redirects are cheap. -- JLaTondre 00:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This dab page was recently moved; the redirect is now an unlikely search term. PC78 19:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. Dar-Ape 19:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep According to Wikipedia:Redirect, redirects like this facilitate disambiguation by separating intentional links to the disambiguation page from accidental ones. See {{R to disambiguation page}} and Category:Redirects to disambiguation pages for more information. Khatru2 03:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree for two reasons. First, I there are few intentional links to disambiguation pages. Secondly, even of those that may exist, I would tend to think that if someone wanted to intentionally link to a disambiguation page for some reason, his/her diligence would probably lead him/her to check to see where the disambiguation page actually is, thus making links to Dazed and Confused both a mix of intentional and unintentional links. Dar-Ape 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep for now per it being a recent move. Wait until articles that contain that phrase are taken care of, then it can certainly be deleted. --Wizardman 04:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's more or less already done. The only pages that link to Dazed and Confused (disambiguation) are this one, a talk page, and a couple of user pages. PC78 19:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you look at the context it's used in on all of those pages, I would venture to say that is completely done. Dar-Ape 22:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it's done, then it can certainly be deleted. --Wizardman 02:06, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Koyote (group) → Koyote[edit]

The result of the debate was Delete. — Renesis (talk) 00:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No other use of this name on Wikipedia. This redirect is a needless and unlikely search term. PC78 19:21, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dar-Ape 19:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Wizardman 04:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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