Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2008

Equality, Alabama → Alabama[edit]

The result of the discussion was Stubbed. RFD no longer applicable. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contested speedy. Settlement of Equality [1] has several incoming links: Special:WhatLinksHere/Equality, Alabama, redir to state is over-broad and target article doesn't mention the settlement. This is not the way settlement articles are usually handled, and it should be left a redlink so that an article will be created in the future. If it is imperative in an article that the reader have a link to Alabama, create it like this [[Equality, Alabama|Equality]], [[Alabama]]. If for some reason this is unacceptable, at the very least this should be redirected to Coosa County, Alabama and the place mentioned in the article. Katr67 (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why a city in Alabama cannot redirect somewhere until someone comes along and writes the article.►Chris NelsonHolla! 16:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Coosa County, Alabama, more specific target. Some communities target to their counties. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm find with the retarget, but shouldn't a stub be created? If this is a village, it's usually considered inherently notable. --UsaSatsui (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should be, but until one is written, a retargeting (per TPH) might be the wisest action here. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawl deletion proposal. I went ahead and created a completely inadequate sub-stub. I didn't create one initially because I wanted someone with more interest and expertise in Alabama related subjects to do it. However, note that redirecting settlement articles to their counties sets a bad precedent, especially if the target article contains no mention of the redirected subject. Redlinks are intended to encourage the creation of articles. In my experience, retargeting an article pretty much guarantees that an article will not be created. There is nothing wrong with redlinks. If you look at Wikipedia:U.S. cities without articles, you will see that there is a precedent for leaving these as redlinks until an article is created. (and see the Michigan section for the proper way to redirect) Redirecting redlinks "somewhere" defeats the purpose of having redlinks at all. </soapbox> Katr67 (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of wikipedians by number of edits → Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 23:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navel-gazing CNR that does not link to content. MBisanz talk 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Editcountitis is only for the Wikipedia: and User: spaces. No article space redirect needed. -- American Eagle (talk) 23:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

EIW:Arb → Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted by Jclemens based upon author request (db-author). -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper CNR, there is now EIW pseudospace. MBisanz talk 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clean up the target page. --DRoll (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

TopicMaps → Wikipedia:Categorization[edit]

The result of the discussion was delete. Wizardman 23:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper, old CNR that does not link to content. MBisanz talk 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

AutoWikiBrowser → Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser[edit]

The result of the debate was Deleted as CSD G4 per last debate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper CNR, does not link to content. MBisanz talk 04:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul Herlinger → Adventures in Odyssey[edit]

The result of the debate was Withdrawn at my request, until an article is created to go there. I may be able to do it soon. -- American Eagle (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently redirects to Adventures in Odyssey, which he was a part of, but is completely independent of it. That is like redirecting Tom Brady to the NFL. American Eagle (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep until someone decides to write a standalone article on Mr. Herlinger. He is currently providing the voice for a major character of the series (and is mentioned as such in the target article). The cited example is a weak analogy as Brady has his own standalone article and Herlinger does not. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, this can be closed as withdrawn, until I create an article on him (which I'll probably be doing soon). Nevermind about this, it may be closed (I don't have the time now to do so right now). Good night. -- American Eagle (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Douchebag of Liberty → Robert Novak[edit]

The result of the discussion was Speedy delete as CSD R3 by NawlinWiki. Scog (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive redirect; not a likely search term Kafka Liz (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, and I don't see why needed. -- American Eagle (talk) 01:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not mentioned in either the target article or The Daily Show: not significant enough for keeping. Delete as inflammatory (no matter what political persuasion the reader may be). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 21:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Candidates_for_Speedy_Deletion → Category:Candidates for speedy deletion[edit]

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Wizardman 23:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from main namespace to cat. --fvw* 01:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, a similar redirect was done with Speedy Delete which I find myself using on a daily basis for quick reference. I see no reason why the same principle should not be applied here. HarlandQPitt (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Use any of the shortcuts to a page (i.e. CAT:CSD), it doesn't have to, nor should be, redirecting from the article space. This is just a personal opinion, I'm not saying it's policy, per se. -- American Eagle (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, links from mainspace to wikipedia space discouraged. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I understand the problems about CNRs, but what else could someone who enters this possibly be looking for? This one seems acceptable to me. Terraxos (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep 'as an exception, in order to help people find the part of Wikipedia that they need. DGG (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_9&oldid=1136448709"