Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 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, 2010

Transport in Round Maple[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. Courcelles 13:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is utterly ridiculous - it's a tiny hamlet so why would anyone ever search for transport in Round Maple? It's on a B road and possibly has no bus service Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the subject is not covered in the target so this redirect is confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have retargeted it to Round Maple#Transport, and added infomation at the target, so it is no longer confusing. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was always a redirect, never had content, recently created. 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as retargeted Not confusing or harmful, and leads to relevant information. --NYKevin @363, i.e. 07:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no transport in Round Maple. Round Maple (pop. 20) is a loose collection of half a dozen or so dwellings on a country lane. Any "information" there is in the article is WP:OR based on the editors interpretation of an A-Z map. Nancy talk 17:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the outcome of this discussion is delete then I would also suggest deleting Transport for Round Maple at the same time. The trouble with these is that they play havoc with the suggestion drop downs for people searching for legitimate transport topics. In my opinion this actually does make their presence harmful (in the sense of detrimental) to the project. Nancy talk 18:05, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Someone is playing games creating pointless redirects to a group of houses with no public transport.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bull's Cross Wood[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. Courcelles 13:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect for utterly non-notable wood that will probably never be searched for. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that this feature is non-notable is the reason why this is a redirect and not an article. Redirects to features mentioned in locality articles are entirely normal. Also, the nomination does not contain any policy-based reason for deletion. Entirely harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There might be somewhere that this wood could be discussed, but Round Maple is not it. The place is a tiny hamlet of two or three houses, is not a parish, and in my looking the woods are never referred to as 'part of' the hamlet. What is interesting about these woods is that they are part of the Milden Thicks SSSI [1]. If an article was created on the SSSI (or the SSSI was part of another article) then this would be a useful redirect. As it stands however, it is simply a confusing redirect of a small piece of woodland to a tiny hamlet nearby. Quantpole (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as stated above, the fact that the feature is non-notable is the reason why this is a redirect and not a separate article. It is definatelly relevent to the article Round Maple. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Quantpole's well stated argument. Also noting that the editor seems intent on creating a redirect to Round Maple (pop. 20) for every single word he finds in its vicinity on the A-Z & OS maps. This is not helpful or useful. Nancy talk 17:43, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Quantpole and Nancy.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the target says that only part of the Wood falls in Round Maple, not all of it. 65.94.44.124 (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Bulls Cross Wood[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. Courcelles 13:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect for utterly non-notable wood that will probably never be searched for. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:16, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that this feature is non-notable is the reason why this is a redirect and not an article. Redirects to features mentioned in locality articles are entirely normal. Also, the nomination does not contain any policy-based reason for deletion. Entirely harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. See my comment above. Quantpole (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as stated above, the fact that the feature is non-notable is the reason why this is a redirect and not a separate article. It is definatelly relevent to the article Round Maple and certainly harmless. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 15:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was always a redirect, never had content, recently created. The article only mentions a similar name, not this one, and only in passing, without any actual information about this or the related similarly named topic. 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the target is incorrect. The article states that only part of the wood lies in Round Maple, not all of it. 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Editor seems intent on creating a redirect to Round Maple (pop. 20) for every single word he finds in its vicinity on the A-Z & OS maps. This is not helpful or useful. Nancy talk 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable address.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Round Maple Cottage[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. Courcelles 13:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect for utterly non-notable building that will probably never be searched for. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that this building is non-notable is the reason why this is a redirect and not an article. Redirects to buildings mentioned in locality articles are entirely normal. Also, the nomination does not contain any policy-based reason for deletion. Entirely harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This building, and others like it, is so non-notable that it probably doesn't even warrant a mention in the article. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above, the fact that the building is non notable, is why it is redirected to Round Maple, and not a separate article (it is mentioned in Round Maple anyway). It isn't doing any harm anyway and probably will be searched sometimes. It is appropriate to mention non-notable buildings in an article about a small hamlet, if it was in an article like London, then it wouldn't be appropriate to mention it, but in a small hamlet it is certainly worth mentioning. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was always a redirect, never had content, recently created. This is only mentioned in passing in the article, without any detail on the topic. 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a listed building it is just a random house in the tiny (pop. 20) hamlet of Round Maple. It appears that equally pointless redirects have been created for each of the other houses therein. This has to stop. Nancy talk 17:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, creator is playing games.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Well House[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. A well house is also be a structure containing a water well. There are a number of mentions of such well houses in articles. None of them are significant so disambiguation really isn't suitable. This is a case where relying the search tool is the best solution for our readers. -- JLaTondre (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect for utterly non-notable building that will probably never be searched for. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that this building is non-notable is the reason why this is a redirect and not an article. Redirects to buildings mentioned in locality articles are entirely normal. Also, the nomination does not contain any policy-based reason for deletion. Entirely harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many other buildings (and other entities such as businesses) called 'Well House' most of which are probably more notable than this. (Also confusing with the Wells House dab page as noted above). Quantpole (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above, the fact that the building is non notable, is why it is redirected to Round Maple, and not a separate article (it is mentioned in Round Maple anyway). It isn't doing any harm anyway and probably will be searched sometimes. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And what happens if someone doesn't want this 'Well House'? Quantpole (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exceedingly generic term. It was always a redirect, never had content, recently created. This is only mentioned in passing in the article, without any detail on the topic. There are many "well house"s in the world, what makes the one in Round Maple the primary usage of this term? Google says [2] there are many other much more prominent locations, such as the one in Cornwall, also in the UK. 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per above; there appear to be a few articles (and potential articles) which could use this. --NYKevin @365, i.e. 07:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wells House This is not a listed building it is just a random house in the tiny (pop. 20) hamlet of Round Maple. It appears that equally pointless redirects have been created for each of the other houses therein. This has to stop. Nancy talk 17:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable in any way.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Langley View[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. Courcelles 13:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect for utterly non-notable building that will probably never be searched for. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that this building is non-notable is the reason why this is a redirect and not an article. Redirects to buildings mentioned in locality articles are entirely normal. Also, the nomination does not contain any policy-based reason for deletion. Entirely harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk)
  • Delete. Many other places called Langley View, which are more notable than a single house. (Including an area of Hampton, Virginia). Quantpole (talk) 11:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above, the fact that the building is non notable, is why it is redirected to Round Maple, and not a separate article (it is mentioned in Round Maple anyway). It isn't doing any harm anyway and probably will be searched sometimes (I can't see why it's pointless). Also Round Maple is a small hamlet, so it is appropriate to mention it. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was always a redirect, never had content, recently created. This is only mentioned in passing in the article, without any detail on the topic. A simple Google search also shows this is not even the most likely target for this [3] ... the one in DEVON is first hit. 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a listed building it is just a random house in the tiny (pop. 20) hamlet of Round Maple. It appears that equally pointless redirects have been created for each of the other houses therein. This has to stop. Nancy talk 17:35, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable address.--J3Mrs (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Round Maple Cottages[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. Courcelles 13:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect for utterly non-notable buildings that will probably never be searched for. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that this building is non-notable is the reason why this is a redirect and not an article. Redirects to buildings mentioned in locality articles are entirely normal. Also, the nomination does not contain any policy-based reason for deletion. Entirely harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk)
  • Keep as stated above, the fact that the building is non notable, is why it is redirected to Round Maple, and not a separate article (it is mentioned in Round Maple anyway). It isn't doing any harm anyway and probably will be searched sometimes. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was always a redirect, never had content, recently created. A similarly named topic is only mentioned in passing in the article, without any detail on the topic, and it is singular, not plural. 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a listed building it is just a random row of houses in the tiny (pop. 20) hamlet of Round Maple. It appears that equally pointless redirects have been created for each of the other houses therein. This has to stop. Nancy talk 17:34, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an address, absolutely not notable.This appears to be becoming a game.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Hatherway Cottage[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. Courcelles 13:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless redirect for utterly non-notable building that will probably never be searched for. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the fact that this building is non-notable is the reason why this is a redirect and not an article. Redirects to buildings mentioned in locality articles are entirely normal. Also, the nomination does not contain any policy-based reason for deletion. Entirely harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing because Hatherway is a very plausible misspelling of Hathaway and there are a couple of other articles, one of which is very well known. This is simply a grade 2 listed house, of which there are ~340,000. The potential mess from creating redirects for all of those properties is very large. Quantpole (talk) 10:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stated above, the fact that the building is non notable, is why it is redirected to Round Maple, and not a separate article (it is mentioned in Round Maple anyway). It's not doing any harm anyway. Crouch, Swale talk to me My contribs 14:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete was always a redirect, never had content, recently created. This is only mentioned in passing in the article, without any detail on the topic. The article clearly separates this from the Grade-2 houses mentioned in the article, so this does not even appear to be a grade-2 house. 184.144.167.193 (talk) 05:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a listed building it is just a random house in the tiny (pop. 20) hamlet of Round Maple. It appears that equally pointless redirects have been created for each of the other houses therein. This has to stop. Also agree 100% with the issue re: the confusion with the similarly named but actually properly notable structure Nancy talk 17:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable address for a non notable building. Someone is playing games.--J3Mrs (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Ring a Ding Ding[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 retargetted with hatnote on the revised target which covers all bases. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:39, 9 December 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_December_9&oldid=1048324947"