Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 7

December 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 7, 2008

Amare → Amar'e Stoudemire[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep and retarget to Te Amaré. Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is unused, except for a misuse in a completely unrelated topic in Cultural views of love. Mosmof (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see keeping Amare Stoudemire or a few variants of the complete name (plausibilities), but Amare is too far afield to be a worthwhile redirect with the current target, but... Retarget to Te Amaré, title of Gloria Estefan's 2004 single that was a massive hit in Spain. Another valid option would be to create a Amaré dab page, then retarget this redirect to it (but this seems more work than it deserves at this time). B.Wind (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Personal responsibility → Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete Ruslik (talk) 09:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase personal responsibility is a very common one; having it redirect to a very specific piece of legislation is inappropriate. On the other hand it is probably not possible to write an encyclopedic, NPOV article, up to WP standards, on the topic of personal responsibility. Likewise, any alternative target would be likely to suffer from POV issues. So the best course of action is simply to delete it. Trovatore (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Accountability. An even better idea would be to have an article at that title (as we do at Collective responsibility), but at the very least Accountability is a better target, and the current target is certainly not a good one. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, that's better than the current target, but do we really want to encourage wikilinking stuff like this? I think not. Better to have the links come up red, hopefully to discourage overlinking. --Trovatore (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's not likely to be a common wikilink, but I think it's potentially useful as a search term, so it shouldn't be a red link, IMO. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If there's no article and you put it in the search box, you get the search page, which I think is just fine. So I think it should be a redlink. --Trovatore (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And moreover: There's a POV problem with any particular target, as I said in the nomination. "Accountability" and "personal responsibility" are closely linked topics, but are they the same? Who says, and why? Doesn't such a redirect effectively take a philosophical stance? No, this really should just be deleted. --Trovatore (talk) 20:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify - it is a valid search term for the law's title; it is also a valid search term for accountability or other similar (legal) terms. The only downside is that responsibility is itself a large dab page. B.Wind (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Turn into a disambiguation page, per B.Wind above. There's no obvious single target for this (in my view) so that's the best solution. Terraxos (talk) 16:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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