Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 June 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 5[edit]

1 + 1 → 2 (number)[edit]

The result of the debate was keep. Black Falcon (Talk) 01:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a calculator. Astroguy2 10:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Although I agree with Astroguy2 that Wikipedia is not a calculator, 1 + 1 is one of the most common math problems in existence, used as the default math problem example, and thus, although it does not deserve to have its own article, it should at least redirect somewhere. 2 (number) would be an appropriate article. Cool Bluetalk to me 22:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Cool Blue. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The expression has more significance than just calculating, as mentioned above and with "what is 1 + 1?" jokes. See 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + · · · for a continuation. –Pomte 07:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This expression is widely used, however, as stated in the redirect's talk page, it may have other uses and disambiguation might be possible. But since no other uses are included in Wikipedia (for now), keep the redirect, but consider redirecting to addition, and not 2 (number). - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 04:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears to have been created for discussion on Talk:2 (number); useless to the encyclopedia. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this addition problem has been noted enough (that is, "notable") for Wikipedia to have a redirect that is cybernetically equivalent to it. GracenotesT § 20:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Foreign language redirects to Wikipedia:Searching[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, redirects from languages other than English shouldn't exist unless the other-language equivalent has special significance or relevance (for instance, München should redirect to Munich). However, for generic terms such as "searching" or "search", foreign-language redirects are unnecessary (otherwise we would justify having hundreds or thousands of non-English redirects for every page on Wikipedia). None of the redirects have any valuable page history or incoming links, aside from those created by this RfD nomination (the only exceptions are Wikipedia:Zoeken, which has two links from an AfD nomination of an unrelated page of the same title, and Wikipedia:Recherche, which has two links from lists of pages from database dumps). Delete. -- Black Falcon (Talk) 07:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree with Black Falcon: "Otherwise we would justify having hundreds or thousands of non-English redirects for every page on Wikipedia." Users searching on Wikipedia can find such pages through easy English terms and searches. - Mtmelendez (Talk|UB|Home) 04:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Meon Valley → Meon Valley Railway[edit]

The result of the debate was Disambig. We have several articles with Meon Valley in the title so a disambig is the proper result. If there is a geographical region that could be included (separate from the Meon Valley (UK Parliament constituency) article), it can be added as a red link to the disambig. -- JLaTondre 19:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not actually sure if the redirect should be deleted or not, this is more a question of policy based on the page being called "Redirects for discussion". I was the one who created the redirect, because I moved the page, and for that reason, I can see why the redirect should stay. However, the original name refers to a geographical area, and having it direct to a railroad (even though it goes through that area) seems to be a bit bizarre and misleading. I have gone through the links to the redirect, and only one or two were actually refering to the railroad (I've fixed them to point to the actual page), all the rest* are refering to the region, which doesn't currently have its own page. So, is this a case where the redirect should stay, or not? -Bbik 04:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*There are a ton of user talk links; they seem to be connected to the New article announcements of the WikiProject Architecture Bulletin. I'm assuming those links don't matter -- inappropriate new pages likely have similar links, yet that doesn't prevent their deletion. -Bbik 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are incoming links referring to the geographical region, then perhaps retargetting to point the broader geographical region would be sufficient for now. This would be what we call a "redirect with possibilities". We even have a special tag for such redirects: {{R with possibilities}}. Xtifr tälk 08:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

1000000000000 (number) → Orders of magnitude (numbers)[edit]

The result of the debate was speedy close. See the AfD for the continued discussion. Sr13 10:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per here, the result of the discussion was to redirect it to Orders of magnitude (numbers). However, there is no plausible reason to do so because it is simply an unlikely search term. I guess that hardly anyone will use that redirect unless they've seen a copy of this RfD, or the AfD. Cool Bluetalk to me 22:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. Nobody scream WP:PERNOM at me. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Firstly this page was only nominated for deletion less than 24 hours ago. It was changed instead to a redirect without sufficient time for discussion. Now we're on about deleting it altogether. I have put it up for deletion review as I have reasoned argument for its keeping. PLEASE can we have at least have a decent amount of time to discuss things. What is the goddam rush ?? The Yeti 22:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep it cool. How can you put it up for deletion review when it hasn't even been deleted? Cool Bluetalk to me 01:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was redirected three and a half hours before its nomination here, after less than sixteen hours on AFD. Should either be kept outright or sent back there for a full five-day discussion, as the previous article was not a speedy candidate. —Cryptic 09:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_5&oldid=1140259373"