Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 11

November 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 11, 2010

Cook's Source[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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cook's Source → Cooks Source infringement controversy (links to redirect • history • stats)

I'm concerned that by redirecting this company's name to one highly negative (albeit justified!) facet of their identity and history might be stretching WP:NPOV a little too far? ╟─Treasury Tag►high seas─╢ 23:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Both Cook's Source and Cooks' Source were used in media coverage, and a number of journalists commented on the lack of apostrophe in the title ("magazine too poor even to afford an apostrophe for its name"). Alternative spellings and likely misspellings per established editing guideline at Wikipedia:Redir#Purposes_of_redirects. Jokestress (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - redirects are purely search aids to which WP:NPOV does not apply - see WP:RNEUTRAL. Plausible search term so no reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—actually, is there anything to stop me from creating a very short stub article about the actual Cooks Source magazine and then pointing all the redirects there? ╟─Treasury Tag►Tellers' wands─╢ 08:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The magazine itself is not notable. Only the 2010 incident made any of this notable. The magazine is basically obscure, but the controversy generated by its editor is very notable and became the topic of worldwide news and analysis. Jokestress (talk) 10:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - in principle there is is no problem provided that you can source notability outside the controversy. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Primary State Highway 19 (Washington)[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. Courcelles 00:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Primary State Highway 19 (Washington) → Interstate 605 (Washington) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Primary State Highway was not first mentioned as a bypass that is now commonly referred to as Interstate 605 (current article it redirects to). Per this document was to be a Eastern Washington highway. Article will be recreated later, but for now the redirect is inaccurate. Admrboltz (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this was a proposed road that never came to fruition. The redirect appears to be misleading. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Imzadi 1979 → 23:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I had not realized this. Thanks for pointing it out and I believe that the described route is similar to that of Washington State Route 174 from Wilbur to Coulee City and Washington State Route 155 from Coulee City to Omak. –CG^Talk 23:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Dough 48 72 04:40, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, a bit of misleading redirect. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 09:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Washington State Route 19, perhaps? Yes, I know their completely different, but this redirect wouldn't surprise most people. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's even more misleading than the current redirect target. – T M F 09:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree per TMF --Admrboltz (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree because WA-19 has nothing to do with PSH 19; two different systems in different locations. –CG^Talk 04:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – T M F 09:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Karg (Masters of the Universe)[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. Jafeluv (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Karg (Masters of the Universe) → Masters of the Universe (film) (links to redirect • history • stats)

Unlikely search term. Ryan4314 (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - former article that gets a fair number of hits each month which shows that it is useful. Being an 'Unlikely search term' isn't valid. People will get here either by putting 'Karg' in the search box or from the hatnote on Karg. Entirely unambiguous and harmless so there is no policy basis to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Leicester, ou Le Chateau de Kenilworth[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 List of operas by Auber. Lenticel ^(talk) 02:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester, ou Le Chateau de Kenilworth → Il castello di Kenilworth (links to redirect • history • stats)

Delete - redirect was from within article on Il castello di Kenilworth by Donizetti, via incorrectly capitalised non-existent article on Auber opera back to original article. I've corrected the link, which is now red, so the useless rdr is now redundant. Hope this is intelligible. GuillaumeTell 01:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to List of operas by Auber which has useful information. Bridgeplayer (talk) 03:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea, and I think it can be targeted directly at the relevant line in the table. A page-move to change "Chateau" to "château" will also be needed. --GuillaumeTell 11:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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