Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 15, 2010

Wikipedia talk:ITNC[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 deleted by Graeme Bartlett as WP:CSD G7. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No page history. No links. Cannot determine any utility for the redirect. Bsherr (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it, it doesn't appear to be useful. Only 2 hits in July. Thanks for the notification too. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G7 in view of the above comment. So tagged. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

National Standards[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 closed as out of scope; now a disambiguation page. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to... something. Whatever it is, this can't be the best redirect target, as there are many kinds of national standards in many nations. bd2412 T 15:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

  • Convert to disambiguation page - there are a whole bunch of pages on the National Standards of various countries. This would be a very useful disamb page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close I already converted the redirect to a dab page.--Lenticel (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rambo V: The Savage Hunt (film)[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) 12:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unnecessary disambiguation, created, I suspect, in order to write an article on a cancelled proposed future film that would have been reverted to a redirect at Rambo V: The Savage Hunt. Rob Sinden (talk) 10:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move page to a sub-page of Talk:Rambo (film series) and delete the resulting redirect. This is a former article, converted to a redirect. If deletion is wanted then it would have been better practice to revert to the article and take it to WP:AFD. The procedure adopted is sub-optimal. Having said that, because we have no firm news on the title of any fifth film, as a redirect it is misleading and confusing. Deletion would be a bad idea because as a former article there are potential GFDL issues. Hence my proposed action which removes the redirect whilst preserving the history. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite - Rambo V, Rambo V: The Savage Hunt and Rambo 5 have all been redirects to the main Rambo (film series) for some time, and were reverted anytime anyone changed these to articles, as the film fails WP:NFF, but it would appear someone has tried to circumvent this in order to create an article with this additional unnecessary disambiguation. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this redirect is misleading then Rambo V: The Savage Hunt should be deleted. If this redirect is not misleading then a straight Keep would be in order. Being 'unnecessary' is not grounds for deletion; we only delete where a redirect is harmful.Bridgeplayer (talk)
  • Keep, over 100K Google hits for Rambo, "Savage Hunt", indicating a substantial population who associate the name with the series. bd2412 T 17:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not saying that Rambo V: The Savage Hunt should be deleted, just the disambiguation Rambo V: The Savage Hunt (film). In any case, no biggie. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Rob's replies to the above. Rob has all the right answers, it seems. --Bsherr (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Family Guy season 5 episode 7[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) 12:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion declined (I guess it wasn't recently created), but this is a highly implausible search term. CTJF83 chat 05:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Even if it were a "highly implausible search term" that is not grounds for deletion. The default is to keep established redirects to avoid, amongst other reasons, breaking links in external sites. This is a harmless redirect that meets none of the criteria of WP:RFD#DELETE. Its not even implausible as is shown by the fact there are a few hits each month so some readers find it plausible. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sure most of the 1-3 a day are people curious as to what it is when the suggestions come up, as was the case why I clicked on it. CTJF83 chat 17:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

National Liberation Struggle[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 Re-targeted to Wars of national liberation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overly specific redirect - delete or dismabig. The term has been applied (sporadically) to many different actions and groups. The target article doesn't include the term. TB (talk) 13:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of songs ruined by Glee[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 as result of old page move vandalism. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result of old page move vandalism, not a useful search term and an implausible redirect. Frickative 04:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete with snow. Very funny page move by an established user probably as a joke, but incorrect. CycloneGU (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Breitbarting[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 Keep. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blogger neologism not supported by any reliable sources. Uncle Dick (talk) 19:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:R#KEEP#3 and #5, someone may be interested in looking up the term now that it has hit the blogs. Per WP:CHEAP, redirects are cheap. Wikipedia does not have a tradition of sourcing redirects. Shaliya waya (talk) 22:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. There is nothing at the target to explain this term, indeed 'Breitbarting' doesn't appear in the page at all, so any searcher will be left in the dark as to the meaning of the term. If some reliably sourced explanation is added then I should be happy to keep. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The arguments I gave were policy-based; those favoring deletion were not. This particular redirect would aid searches on certain terms (WP:R#KEEP #3) and someone finds them useful (WP:R#KEEP #5). Shaliya waya (talk) 05:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - being confusing is a policy-based deletion reason. Since the term is not explained at the target it would not aid searchers; it would just leave them scratching their heads. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Actually seems to exist. Blogger here cites to Politico, well-respected online political magazine, which refers to contributor from The Nation using the term on TV.[1] --Bsherr (talk) 03:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. I would support keeping the redirect in light of these new sources. However, it should resolve to the main article discussing the Resignation of Shirley Sherrod, not Andrew Breitbart's biographical article. Uncle Dick (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could go along with that. --Bsherr (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Holy See (Vatican City State)[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 convert to disambiguation page ~Amatulić (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entry is self-contradictory: the Holy See and Vatican City State are two distinct entities. If kept, it should perhaps become a disambiguation page. Esoglou (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I'm not sure about "Holy See (Vatican City State)", but I have seen in many places Vatican City being referred to as "Holy See (Vatican City)". エムエックスさん 話 20:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete though you could interpret the (Vatican City State) as being a disambiguation from other Holy Sees (that have little or nothing to do with the Vatican). Sure, it's not the best possible disambiguation, and if you took it that way it should in any case point to Holy See rather than Vatican City. Sideways713 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this redirect still gets a few hits each day, and the term "Holy See (Vatican City State)" is actually used by some sources, like [2]. This redirect is just slightly different from "Holy See (Vatican City)", which is used by many sources like the CIA World Factbook, regardless of whether they are technically separate entities. エムエックスさん 話 19:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. In view of the above remarks, I think it would be best to turn the page into a disambiguation page pointing to each of the two distinct entities. Esoglou (talk) 05:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:28, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Disambiguate this seems like a plausible search term. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold suggestion of what a disambiguation could look like
Holy See (Vatican City State) may refer to:
  • Keep In this context, it's plainly a reference to the country. Vatican City is an observer at the United Nations under the name of "Holy See", for example. The existence of references such as the Factbook, which covers the country, shows that people are likely to use this title when they want the country. Nyttend (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. On the contrary, as explained in the articles on the two entities, it is the Holy See, not the Vatican City State, that is an observer at the United Nations; it is the Holy See, not the Vatican City State, that has diplomatic relations with countries throughout the world, having had them since long before Vatican City State came into existence in 1929; it is generally the Holy See that is a signatory to international treaties, with Vatican City State being a signatory only to those of a technical nature related to its territory, such as treaties on posts and telecommunications. Esoglou (talk) 10:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mx3. Plausible search term. The Vatican City article basically disambiguates the two entities in the second paragraph, so I don't think a separate disambiguation page is necessary or useful. Uncle Dick (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What the second paragraph does is to say that they are not the same thing. The redirect suggests that, on the contrary, they are the same thing under two names. If we did have to choose one of the two for searchers to be redirected to, it should be the one that most of them are looking for: the religious entity (which is also active in the international and diplomatic field for centuries), not the recently created 44-hectare state. Like the Vatican City article, the Holy See article also says that the two are not the same thing. Esoglou (talk) 05:51, 26 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_15&oldid=1136448524"