Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 July 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 6, 2010

Nihoshi[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 all. Ruslik_Zero 16:43, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been able to source any reliable connection with Saebyol, so these are confusing. However, some or all, could be considered plausible typos for Niboshi to which they could be retargeted. Any not considered suitable for retargeting should be deleted. I invite views on the best solution. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: the only information I can find to explain these is here, although who knows where that page came from. Unless someone can find something else, I'd support deleting these, except for the most plausible misspellings (Nīhoshi, Niihoshi).  Glenfarclas  (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - would not Niiboshi and Nīboshi be more likely (with a b rather than an h)? Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, my brain quit working there; I looked up at the section heading and read that as the target, instead of the first redirect up for discussion, and then I read your comment to say Nihoshi too. Yes, I agree with you.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:33, 29 June 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) 23:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and I'm not sure it's all that useful as a typo redirect for Niboshi. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mark J. Fairchild[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 Retarget to LaRouche movement. (non-admin closure) --erachima talk 02:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is to article with almost no info on Fairchild. Fairchild was Lt. Gov. nominee and has been in news more recently. Redirect prevents creation of article with same name.LakeAtNight (talk) 09:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to LaRouche movement. The retarget, much more detailed about Fairchild than the present target, seems to contain the essential information about him. A redirect doesn't prevent article creation; just write one! I would agree with leaving a red link if we had nothing to say but, in this case, the retarget has information that any searcher would find useful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:19, 28 June 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) 23:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Corean Scientific Society[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
Jafeluv (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various non-existent Korean societies which make for pointless, unhelpful, and confusing redirects. There are one or two conceivable retargets, like Korean Association → Korean Association of Retired Persons, but they're too vague and I don't see the value.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good call on those -- I looked for something do with those, somehow managed to miss the retargets you found.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 01:33, 28 June 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) 23:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except for the retagetted "Korea* foundation" ones, and the dabified Korean Society. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Tonrakoku[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
Jafeluv (talk) 12:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fifteen implausible-seeming redirects to an ancient Korean kingdom. None of these is mentioned in the article as an alternative name; in fact, the three alternative names that are mentioned, Tangna, Seomna, and Tammora, don't exist. Tanbora is a possible redirect to Mount Tambora (which is in Indonesia, not Korea). As for Dulla, we've got a Dulla Bhatti and a Goth Dulla Lakhan. Tonra might go to Mark Tonra, a cartoonist, and Tanra, maybe, to Tantra. Otherwise, these all seem like candidates for deletion as baseless and implausible, like Tonrakoku (4 GHits), Tunluoguo (same), etc.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget Tonra to Mark Tonra as a plausible search term. I have converted Dulla to a disamb page since it gets a fair flow of hits. Delete the rest as misleading and confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:57, 28 June 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) 23:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

T:APPLE[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 per WP:CSD#G7. –xenotalk 23:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created, unnecessary cross-namespace redirect. The banner template is not linked often enough in discussions to require placing a redirect in the mainspace. As an abbreviation of {{WikiProject Apple Inc.}}, it is not necessary either as it requires prefixing with a : (since you're transcluding a mainspace page, not a template) and as a result is the same length as {{WP Apple}}, and adds confusion to the wikitext being an entirely non-standard way of calling a project banner. –xenotalk 23:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close: I have to agree. G7ed. —mono 23:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:WPPR[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 Improper venue. Template content should be discussed at WP:TFD. (non-admin closure) --erachima talk 02:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After creating a better template at another location and redirecting this one to there, I have noticed there is no need for a redirect page towards the new template. Its better to just delete this page. Feedback (talk) 07:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undo redirect - I am not comfortable about this nomination. The new template is horizontal whereas the old one is vertical. Also, confusingly, the blue links in the new template are in red!! Though there are only two uses of the old template, I am not sure why they should be deprived of using the old template, if they prefer it. The way forward is to undo the redirect and for the nominator to take the existing template to WP:TFD if he wishes to pursue its deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bridge, very few people edit in that project and I am starting a project revamp for the project. Part of it was the new layout and the red words is part of the color scheme (red, white and blue like the Puerto Rican flag). The old template includes some things that aren't even in use (like newsletter). The new template is in every single project page, but the project in itself is inactive. I don't know what you mean when you say "they prefer it that way", because there aren't any devoted active members of the project other than me (since recently). Feedback (talk) 04:25, 27 June 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) 23:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep This really belongs at WP:TfD as this is not about the deletion of a redirect, but the deletion of a template that was redirected to another shortly before being nominated for deletion. —Farix (t | c) 16:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

transformer substation[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 --Taelus (Talk) 19:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is a “novel synonym for an article name”; perhaps it is an “implausible misnomer”? Although it could also qualify for wp:speedy#G7, I think that it is better to list it here, to gain a sense of what the community thinks. Bwrs (talk) 17:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's nothing particularly implausible about this -- see, e.g., here, here, and here. Am I missing something?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 19:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems fine to me as a search term, though not really good usage. It was also used here, for example. The lead sentence explains to the reader why they were taken to the target so it is not confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen this term used for an electrical substation. 76.66.195.196 (talk) 05:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Funny Foreign Squiggle[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. --Taelus (Talk) 19:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a joke redirect. not a likely search term or link target. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Probably not a joke, but just an “implausible misnomer” or “novel synonym.” Delete for NPOV reasons (“foreign” from whose point of view?) Bwrs (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as very implausible search term. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - barely used and certainly meets deletion criterion 8. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Pause for Thought[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 Retarget to Wake_Up_to_Wogan#Pause_for_Thought --Taelus (Talk) 19:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful redirect to a page with no mention of this radio programme ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 10:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete it. Bwrs (talk) 17:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wake Up to Wogan#Pause for Thought which is both relevant and helpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with retarget idea. While Pause for Thought is heard on many programmes on Radio 2 it is probably most associated with Wake up to Wogan. As there is a section on it in that article, a redirect there would be useful. TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

October 3, 1954 - August 27, 1990[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 close. User that originally suggested deletion at AfD is now changing his/her stance. Non-admin closure. Erpert (let's talk about it) 02:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a procedural nomination; it was originally brought to AfD by mistake. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - ah, well, that question highlights why I don't do popular culture :-) I can't answer the question but the way to get an answer is for someone is to take it to AFD. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever the consensus, it's acceptable. My intent was to have an extraneous page removed. I don't see anyone searching by that exact name. Instead, they'll discover the page via discography and next/last links. All links have been updated to the current page so the original has become a dead page. Thanks for bearing with me. Topjimmyc (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible typo as discussed, above. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Health benefits for same-sex couples in Brazil[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no one will ever search for this string looking for the lead article. Wholly improbable, to the point of non-existent. search term. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 06:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and sharpen target to Recognition of same-sex unions in Brazil#Health benefits - this was originally an article and this redirect was created after the content was merged to the target. Consequently, the history needs to be retained for GFDL reasons. Since there is directly relevant content at the target then keeping it is the most straightforward option. Someone looking for the topic and typing 'health benefits' into the search box will get offered this link which will take them to the material they are seeking. Finally, none of the criteria for deletion are met - see WP:RFD#DELETE. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Cirustheater[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be deleted because it is an implausible typo. Reyk YO! 22:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - firstly, if the nominator considers that this is implausible then he should try a CSD R3 tag since the underlying title was created this month. However, looking at this search, it appears in a number of external sources apart from the mirrors and therefore seems plausible. Also, it is harmless and doesn't meet any of the deletion criteria so there is no benefit from deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:09, 25 June 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) 05:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Arequipa Stadium[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. Plausible search term. (non-admin closure) erachima talk 02:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This stadium was never known as Arequipa Stadium and there is no supporting source to say it ever was. MicroX (talk) 00:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - a redirect doesn't have to be on the correct name but if the name is incorrect then it should be a plausible search term. After the nominator moved the page, the lead sentence was left unchanged as "Arequipa Stadium, or UNSA Stadium, is a stadium located in the Peruvian city of Arequipa." which indicates some plausibility as a search term. Also, a Gsearch shows widespread usage of the term. When someone doesn't know the official name of a stadium in city ABC, they are likely to search on 'ABC Stadium' so this redirect seems helpful. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Bridgeplayer. bd2412 T 13:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Estadio del la UNSA[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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect typo title. "del la" is never said in Spanish. MicroX (talk) 00:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, unhelpful and fairly implausible as per nom.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looking here, the stadium is also known as Estadio de la UNSA. This redirect seems an entirely plausible typo, and it is harmless. It doesn't meet any of the criteria of WP:RFD#DELETE. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:59, 6 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_6&oldid=1150995376"