Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 December 26

December 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 26, 2010

Football real[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 Delete both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Football real → Association football (links to redirect • history • stats)
Footbal real → Association football (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete – implausible redirects without proper disambiguation and POV. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete has nothing to do with royal football. 184.144.160.77 (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- What is royal football? McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV pushing, trying to hijack the term football, which is not just soccer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Royal Spanish Football Federation seems to be the best target for this redirect, even though it doesn't yet explain the history behind Real Madrid, Real Sociedad, and so forth and all of the goings-on at the beginning of the 20th century. Alfonso XIII of Spain (which does explain albeit not fully) would probably be too confusing a target for the editors in this world who ask exactly what Mclay1 did above. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no plausible redirect target for this link, neither "Association football" nor "Royal Spanish Football Federation" or any of the Spanish "Real" clubs. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 20:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

John Knightley[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

Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 10#John Knightley. — ξ ^xplicit 00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

John Knightley → George Knightley (links to redirect • history • stats)

Implausible redirect; "John" is not "George". :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 07:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect John Knightley to Emma or somewhere else relevant. John Knightley is apparently George Knightley's brother. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

T:OTD[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 delete. — ξ ^xplicit 00:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

T:OTD → Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/April 29 (links to redirect • history • stats)

Invalid redirect. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 06:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both this and Template:On this day attempt to redirect to the selected anniversaries for the current day, however they don't actually work. WP:OTD transcludes the relevant day's anniversaries and does work. I don't agree that the T: prefix is "invalid" though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unnecessary and cross-namespace. Mhiji 17:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia main page[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 (non-admin close) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 21:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia main page → Main Page (links to redirect • history • stats)

Is this really necessary as a redirect? I find it extremely hard to believe that someone will have trouble finding the main page, despite the fact that over 40 people have accessed this page at the time of this RfD nomination. /ƒETCH COMMS / 00:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But is it necessary to delete it? Keep, no real reason given for deletion. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:26, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the main page is not an article about wikipedia's main page. Further, Main Page is a portal sitting in artclespace, so this is a pseudo-cross namespace redirect. 184.144.160.77 (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if people are using this it makes enough sense to keep it. It would make more sense for the main page to be at the location of the redirect, but that would cause even more trouble! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bduke. Someone who was meaning to search Google for the Wikipedia main page but mistakenly used a Wikipedia search plugin, etc. would be aided by this redirect. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the 40+ people using it have benefited from its existence. I can't figure out why they have trouble finding the Main Page, but since they do, let's not make it even harder for them. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – plausible redirect. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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