Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 13[edit]

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

Neo Babelist[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. JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a plausible search term, or a widely used term? Not only that, but the target is a disambiguation page, which only makes matters more confusing. This redirect article [correction by — RHaworth (talk · contribs)] was created by RLDabney, who apparently belongs to a religion known as Kinism; Kinists frequently use terms like "Babelist" to describe mainstream Christians. However, Kinism itself is not considered notable by Wikipedia's standards, since it has failed multiple AFD discussions. If Kinism is not notable, then I don't see how a term associated with Kinism is notable. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • When I see "Babelist", I except it to refer to a list of, well, you know. bd2412 T 16:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have alerted the redirector. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not mentioned at the target and is confusing. I don't think a retarget to Tower of Babel would help. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I converted it to a redirect but cannot now remember why on earth I did it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 05:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kascha[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 move Kascha (disambiguation) to Kascha. JohnCD (talk) 12:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kascha redirects to a disambiguation page, where there is only one article with Kascha in the title. Since there is not more than one primary topic, having (disambiguation) in the title is unnecessary. Kascha should redirect to Kascha Papillon until another ambiguous article is created. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have invited the editors who have been involved with this redirect, to comment. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Are you proposing the deletion of the disambiguation page itself? Unless the disambiguation page is to be deleted, it should be moved to "Kascha". I note also that Košice (which is the other article on the disambig page) does include "Kascha" as an alternative spelling in the body of the article. I think this is a plausible basis upon which to disambiguate, and I doubt that the "porn star" is the primary topic in the quite the same sense that, for example, the Supreme Court justice is the primary topic for John Marshall. bd2412 T 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and take to WP:MFD if required - we certainly can't leave this disambiguation page as an orphan. One way forward would be to redirect Kascha to Kascha Papillon and place a hatnote on Kascha Papillon. However, that would require the deletion of the disambiguation page which would have to be authorised at WP:MFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rollover redirect, move the dab page on top of the redirect. 76.66.192.55 (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move disamb page to Kascha - yes, that's better, actually. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of renamed places in India[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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was originally created during a page move war which has since been resolved (a user was trying to expand the scope of an article against consensus). This redirect is now left over as the shrapnel from that move war, it is longer required and is an implausible search term for the main article. Additionally, nothing links to this page except the talk page of the admin who reverted the page move and protected the original article against future page moves. SnottyWong squeal 00:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the admin who reverted the page move, I see no need to keep this redirect, but I'll leave it to someone else to judge whether it should be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
List of renamed Indian public places was the original title of this article, before it was moved by consensus. That is why it has a lot of links, and thus why it should be kept. However, the redirect under discussion here was only created a week or two ago, has no links to it, has no useful edit history, and essentially no purpose. Admittedly, it is harmless, however that is not a reason to keep it. Criteria number 8 from WP:RFD#DELETE is the closest one that applies. SnottyWong squeal 16:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need a reason to keep; the default is to keep so we need a reason to delete. I don't think criterion 8 applies and IMHO it is a plausible search term in any case. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no guideline I'm aware of which states that "the default is to keep". I believe that is something you made up yourself. WP:RFD encourages us to only delete redirects which are harmful or recently created. This redirect was recently created, so it fits that guideline. At the same time, it doesn't fit any of the criteria to not delete a redirect. SnottyWong yak 22:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a redirect doesn't meet any of the criteria for deletion (which is the case here as far as I can see), there's no reason why it should be deleted, now is there? The page says "You might want to delete a redirect if one or more of the following conditions is met" for a reason. Sideways713 (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Alcácer Ceguer[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 closed as out of process. This was closed as no consensus just 4 days ago at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 1#Alcácer Ceguer after a relisted RFD. No benefit in bringing it back so soon. No reliable sources have been adduced. If someone has knowledge of the subject they can sort out the pages, boldly, without reference here, perhaps as suggested at the first RFD. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are two different Morocan cities. Ksar-el-Kebir (Portuguese Alcácer-Quibir) and Ksar Seghir (Portuguese Alcácer-Ceguer) about 150km apart[1][2].--85.53.21.104 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Song Church[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Either an article needs to be written about the church in Fair Lawn or any of the many same-named churches, or the redirect should be deleted. There's no reference to New Song Church in the Fair Lawn article at all, nor any reason why an entry should redirect to the city when they are not significantly related. Mistakefinder (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - if there was a mention of New Song Church in the target I would have no problem with this redirect. However, as things stand, it is confusing, and I see no alternative target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:44, 13 July 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_July_13&oldid=1142587790"