Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 13, 2010

Sean Davey[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to article that doesn't mention Sean Davey. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:16, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ride My Tempo(Ida Corr song)[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The missing space makes this an unlikely search term. The redirect was a result of the article title being misspelled at creation. Jafeluv (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fifth wall[edit]

The result of the discussion was Keep as the redirect is directed at content in a specific section. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting deletion of redirect and removal of material from destination as unsolicited and not notable, or MUCH preferably restoration of the original page that became the redirect. Merge was never openly supported and the article was being actively edited. Chose an RfD versus just reverting the articles as a courtesy. Redirect is a total contradiction. If article A is about "A" and B about "B", why should typing in "B" send you to "A"? Even if B stems from A, its notability needs to be established within the context the article topic's sourced information... if not, that's why separated fork articles are for. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Talk page of the old article was attempts at notability and deletion questions. Neither of those support the merge that resulted in this redirect and needs to be corrected. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whilst I will not claim knowledge in this area, the article is tagged as needing to be kept for GFDL reasons, thus if the result here is delete it will need to be moved to the project space. Unless of course, the tagging is invalid... Anyone know a GFDL expert? Memory seems to recall we run into this issue once every month or so at RfD. --Taelus (talk) 10:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From an attribution point of view: The redirect doesn't need to be kept if the target does not incorporate any material from it. decltype (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The material from Fifth Wall was merged by consensus. It is sourced and the claims that it shouldn't be there seem to be from a single editor who wrote a lengthy diatribe against the clean up done by several editors to actually source fourth wall and remove a bunch of OR. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose echoing Collectonian. The motivation for this RfD seems to be the deletion of Category:Breaking the Fourth Wall (Cfd here [1]) and borders on a WP:POINT violation (see this diff from the Talk:Fourth wall[2] for further evidence of this). Secondly I oppose this on the attribution grounds because it has been proposed that the material from this page be moved from Fourth wall to Theatre (see this [3]). This was still at a discussion stage so no merge tags have been placed - but considering that there was a consensus on Fourth Wall for the move all that needs to occur is for discussion to be opened on Talk:Theatre. Third there is a kind of straw man argument raised about the Fifth Wall concept's notability. While not as notable by any means as Fourth wall the concept of fifth wall is significant in Puppet theatre[4] and visa vie Shakespearean theatre criticism[5][6].--Cailil talk 17:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the proposer wants to restore earlier content, and that does not need WP:RFD discussion.--Rumping (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jon King (disambiguation)[edit]

The result of the discussion was No consensus ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There used to be a dab-page here. It was deleted because, after one article-deletion, it contained only one entry, which was subsequently the target for this redirect. While I guess there's no harm in leaving this redirect intact, it also serves no purpose. -Lilac Soul (Talk • Contribs) 07:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per WP:DABNAME. Hatnote templates like {{otheruses}} point to X (disambiguation), not X directly. This is to make it clear that a link to the disambiguation page is intended, and not one of the several meanings of X. Jafeluv (talk) 14:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"A"[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless and unhelpful. A search in quotes will turn up the same result anyway. — the Man in Question (in question) 05:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Princess of Pop[edit]

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Honorific nicknames in popular music ~ Amory (u • t • c) 02:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False or misleading redirect. No credible evidence that this phrase has been widely applied to Spears, or anyone else for that matter. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

H.D. Betz on the Sermon on the Mount[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original title created by page author a month ago, which I've moved because the article was really about the man. "H.D. Betz on the Sermon on the Mount" does not strike me as a plausible search term to retain as a redirect.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - This may be a work by the author. In that case, still delete, it hinders article creation. Unless it wouldn't meet the notability guideline. I'm stuck here. (Sock of) Lord Spongefrog (Talk to m['Lord]e) 21:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alan Robertson (swimmer[edit]

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with a missing parenthesis created a month ago from a mistake in typing. I've fixed the one page that linked it to link its target instead.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:59, 13 January 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_January_13&oldid=1091465465"