Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 14[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 14, 2010

K20HB-TV/Montana PBS[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 Deleted. Rationale for keep recommendation is invalid as no content was merged so there is not a GFDL issue. Unlikely search term as people would simply use K20HB & not the redirect name. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An implausible redirect--there is no such thing as K20HB-TV, and nobody will search for it. Tried to speedy it, but apparently it's been around since 2006, so to Rfd it goes. Blueboy96 23:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - First of all, there is a former article that has been redirected. It was created before Montana PBS so the history needs to be kept for GFDL reasons. The most convenient way is simply to retain the redirect. OK, there may only be a trickle of hits but at least some readers search for it which justifies its existence. It appears from here, here and here that it has had some previous existence/link with Montana PBS. Doesn't meet WP:RFD#DELETE. All in all there is no merit in deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Global Arab Network"[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 Speedy delete under CSD R3. decltype (talk) 20:04, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects that are merely the same as the article title except that they are surrounded by quotation marks are not useful per previous RfD consensus. –Grondemar 13:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as R3 and tagged as such. Created yesterday; no need to bring it here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Trichloroazane[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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is an implausible misnomer. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - this redirect is given as an alternative name in the article. This needs sorting first. Can you source either way, please? Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reason ammended: uncommon search term.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - alternative titles for the subject of articles, and mentioned in the page, are always valid redirects. Being an 'uncommon search term' is not a policy-compliant deletion reason. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a logically consistent name, given that azane is an alternative name for ammonia, but I cannot find instances of this name actually being used outwith Wikipedia. So at the moment I'm leaning towards the policy-compliant reason for deletion that this isn't, in fact, a valid redirect because the subject at the target of the redirect isn't actually named this in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All usage of this term comes from wikipedia and this is how individuals "create" new words - by posting them on wikipedia, then getting a copy/paste avalanche and then say "hey", its notable! Materialscientist (talk) 00:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if this is not a correct term then it should be removed from the target. If that is done then I would support deletion. However, it is important to do things in the right order; decide first whether it should be in the page then that will determine the fate of the redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - trichloroazane is a technically correct, but uncommon term. Hence, it should remain in the target as a trivial mention.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Creative and clever wordsmithing, but Wikipedia is not the place to create chemical nomenclature or encourage the use of extremely obscure terminology.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The redirect is technically correct, and there is no other article waiting to go up in its place, so I can't see that it does any harm. Another point that the non-WikiChemists here might not realize is that we do get, from time to time, editors coming along who are almost fanatical about systematic nomenclature, who want to move articles left right and centre and add names that (like "trichloroazane") are never actually used in the real world: to have these redirects is a useful reply to such editors! We can say to them "well, just type in 'trichloroazane' and you will go directly to our article on trichloroazane, even if the article title is 'nitrogen trichloride'"! Physchim62 (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. However uncommon, PubChem Compound lists it as an alternate name. -Shootbamboo (talk) 03:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals, it has been determined that chemical data bases are not acceptable sources for chemical names, including PubChem.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Physchim62. This is a plausible, though unlikely, search term for NCl3. Personally, I find the alternative name trichlorine nitride much more disturbing... a pity it is actually used occasionally, as it is so obviously wrong. EdChem (talk) 06:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Shoreham Beach Residents Association[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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very implausible redirect and this WP:NN association seems to have no connection with political parties or the lack thereof. Toddst1 (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—implausible search term, not mentioned in the target article. –Grondemar 14:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this body is also a political party that has several elected councillors and is therefore notable. However, the redirect is not helpful. Better to have a red link to encourage article creation. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as the why it was created - Created to try and fix a problem encountered with the Adur District Council Elections where that label is used as a description for some successful independents. They are an independent organisation which stands there and an attempt was made to try and have that label redirect to Independent politicians but allow for the label to be used in the Election infoboxes and results templates. --Lucy-marie (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

THe Redirect needs fixing rather than deleting.--Lucy-marie (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be fixed without a sensible retarget and I can't find anywhere that provides a worthwhile description of this body. Redirecting to just one of their election results doesn't do it. If you can find some reliable sources, the best way forward is to write an article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a few links sowing who ther are and for how long they have been standing in local election for. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. There a sampling of some of the sources demonstrating its notability.--Lucy-marie (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question of notability is not at issue here; if you consider that this body meets WP:GNG then go ahead and write a page and this RFD will be closed. However, notability is not a justification for a redirect (nor is lack of notability a reason for such a redirect being deleted). A redirect is simply a navigation aid and it needs to take the reader to worthwhile information. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2010 (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/2010_August_14&oldid=616127648"