Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 13[edit]

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

Template:Unreliable[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) 12:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name doesn't clarify that it's about article's sources. It gives the impression the article is unreliable. there were 25 transclusions which I fixed. Check [1], [2]. I suggest that we delete it to avoid confusions. Magioladitis (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment how would it give that impression? The infobox it displays clearly says it is about the sources. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the diffs I gave? -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - an article with unreliable sources is itself unreliable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and what about an article with no sources? Isn't it unreliable too? -- Magioladitis (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I don't understand what point you are making. If an article has no sources then it doesn't need to be tagged as having unreliable sources. It's not the end of the world if it does get so tagged though - either the person placing the tag, or another user who sees it (patroling, checking their watchlist, etc) will substitute the correct {{unreferenced}} (or similar) template. While the incorrect tag is on the page, it is still highlighting to readers that the article is unreliable and should be treated accordingly. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a reasonable shortening of the template name that can be used as a short cut. B.Wind (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Extensive table[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 deleted per CSD R3: Recently created, implausible redirect. --Taelus (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A very horseshit redirect A redirect that appears to be rather useless, and poorly linked to the topic. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I apologise for my inappropriate summary earlier on. I was not sober, and was only on Wikipedia patrolling pages to kill time whilst waiting for my other drunken friend to recover from passing out. (and yes, I do frequently do such things whilst under the influence of alcohol, but that's just me) Sorry if there was any offense caused. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - well too generic to be of any use as a redirect. Created in 2010. B.Wind (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Success stories[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 Deleted per CSD R3: Recently created implausible redirect. --Taelus (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most fucking horseshit redirect I have ever read A poor redirect, which appears to be promoting the topic at hand, and appears to be of little use. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 07:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I apologise for my inappropriate summary earlier on. I was not sober, and was only on Wikipedia patrolling pages to kill time whilst waiting for my other drunken friend to recover from passing out. (and yes, I do frequently do such things whilst under the influence of alcohol, but that's just me) Sorry if there was any offense caused. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 08:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - well too generic to be of any use as a redirect. Created in 2010. B.Wind (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Athletics at the 1932 Summer Olympics - Men's 4x400 metre relay[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 all, the redirects can simply be overwritten with articles so deletion is not necessary. Thryduulf (talk) 14:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the following above pages should be deleted. I plan on creating a page for each of these artices and a redirect doesn't make sense for every single page. Why should a reader be redirected to a list of every single Olympic medalists in athletics if they are only researching the 1932 Olympics? Please delete these redirects so I don't have to waste my time blanking the page to create a new article. Thank you. Philipmj24 (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, nomination of similar pages bundled together at this timestamp. Thanks, --Taelus (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep till converted to article. I don't see why it's an issue to delete the #REDIRECT part and create the article... The redirects serve their purpose till that point. --Taelus (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note from editor that reverted mass blanking. Deletion is not needed to write a new article - just overwrite it with a normal edit (as was already done with one of the blanked pages that were not brought here). I saw all of these while I was on short pages patrol and I wanted to make sure that the editor wanted them gone ({{db-author}} leaves no doubt). I am neutral here as I normally defer to the originating editor, but I see the potential of these being either useful redirects or turned into standalone articles. B.Wind (talk) 03:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Jenifwabe[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 deleted WP:CSD#G3 as hoax. If Star Wars cruft isn't in Wookipedia, it shouldn't be here. JohnCD (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was originally created as an off-shoot of a single sentence in the Ewok article about a supposed Ewok ceremonial feast known as the Jenifwabe. Due to the lack of independent content, I redirected the page back to Ewok. Upon further investigation, I found that the same person who created this page had added the sentence about the "Jenifwabe" into the Ewok article just a little bit previously. I was unable to locate any sources to support it and believe that its probably a hoax. Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:15, 13 March 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_March_13&oldid=1064438572"