Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 21, 2010

No Instruments (second edition)[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 03:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable, unnecessary —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as potentially confusing. The name of the re-release of No Instruments is in fact No Instruments. There is no notability for the second release of an album that the first release doesn't already have. Disambiguating between different issues of the same album is generally not a Good Thing unless the re-release is notable independent of the original (see, for example, Yesterday... And Today, whose original "Butcher cover" gave way to a cover with the band sitting amidst trunks, or Blind Faith, the re-release of which had a cover with a different visual impact compared to that of the original). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

No Instruments (USA Release) (album)[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 03:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and improbable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - the double disambiguation is a violation of WP:NAME. This would be a speedy delete recommendation had this been around for less than a few months, but I hope this one doesn't last too long. B.Wind (talk) 23:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

New Frontier (Matt Finish CD)[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 ~ mazca talk 18:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary and improbable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: target has been redirected to Matt Finish; nominated redirect has been similarly retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search item. While the disambiguation is a redundancy, I see it as a possible search item. Redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect, and it certainly does not create the possibility of confusion here. B.Wind (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per B.Wind. Thryduulf (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

My First Everything (EP album)[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. Redirecting there ends up discouraging creation. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: target has been redirected to Melissa Otero, the act who recorded it. The nominated redirect has been retargeted accordingly. On this nomination I am neutral. B.Wind (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Made in Altan Urag (album)[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 - recently moved, plausible search term. ~ mazca talk 18:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - "Made in Altan Urag" is the name, and it is the title of a music album. Thus this is a probable search item. B.Wind (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' per B.Wind and the fact that the article was at this title since it's creation 2.5 months ago until 2 minutes before the deletion nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 17:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Limited Edition(Benjy Davis Project Album)[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 speedily deleted CSD R3 by User:Ged UK (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable, malformed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:04, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, the lack of space before the parentheses and recent creation make this eligable for WP:CSD#R3 in my opinion. Will tag as such. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Linkless[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 03:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 29 November 2006 Rich Farmbrough wrote "I prefer "orphan" because it implies what it means. Linkless seems to say that it has no links in it." Check the talk page for more. Even if Linkless implies "without any incoming links" still not all linkless pages are orphans. Take for example disamb pages. Moreover, sometimes orphan articles are not "linkless". They may have only 1 incoming link. Finally, low number of transclusions shows it's not used any more. Magioladitis (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkless was mainly confused with {{deadend}} -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable as orphaned articles are usually dead end ones as well. Lack of incoming links is not a reason to delete a redirect. On the other hand, I fail to see why {{orphan}} and {{deadend}} should be separate templates in the first place. On the other hand, {{linkless}} is vague as it doesn't state whether it pertains to incoming links or outgoing links. B.Wind (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because the term is vague. It could be either {{orphan}}, {{wikify}}, or {{deadend}} - it might be best to discourage recreation because of the ambiguity... and investigate the possibility of merging these three terms/templates into just one entry. B.Wind (talk) 23:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That would make sense as a target as well. If this were an article I'd unhesitatingly recommend dabifiation. However, I don't know that there is an equivalent for templates? 23:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Supreme Court of Thailand[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 03:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Misleading redirect. The Supreme Court and Constitutional Court are different and separate entities. Paul_012 (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabify per Paul. Deletion is not the answer as there seems to be a difference of terminology and structure as a result of the 2007 Constitution of Thailand (which needs an article that actually states its provisions). Clearly a dab page is needed here as the Constitutional Court of Thailand performs a role similar to Supreme Courts of other countries. B.Wind (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify per B.Wind. I agree completely. Swarm(Talk) 22:31, 21 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_21&oldid=1048682489"