Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 25, 2010

Gunnar Eriksson (1980's skier)[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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has been around for a while, but it does not really serve any purpose since Thomas Eriksson is not, and has not been, called Gunnar - I suspect the article name was a mistake. Because there was a notable skier called Gunnar Eriksson who was active in the 1940s, and also a number of other Gunnar Eriksson/Ericssons who are notable, having this redirect can potentially cause some confusion. bonadea contributions talk 12:38, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Even though I created the redirect earlier, I did it for dab. No issues. Chris (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as a G7 since the original creator has supported deletion.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 06:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Red haired barbarians[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 Re-targeted to Barbarian#Non-European civilizations which provides a better explanation. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a common description of Dutch people, not mentioned in the article, not an obvious or very probable target for the search term. No other obvious target is available either as far as I can tell. Fram (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Travis Erstad[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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone clicking this link will not expect to be taken to the draft page. Unlikely to become an article any time soon; is better off as a red link if it does become an article. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 10:27, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Since the draft article would barely be talking about the individual. Someone clicking the link would not be expecting to go there. Better off as a red link for the future. -DJSasso (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Resolute 15:12, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - potentially notable so better as a red link. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It is a useful redirect and should be kept per Reasons for not deleting redirects guidelines. Dolovis (talk) 16:21, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Which guideline? There's six of them. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 03:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, it fits into WP:REDIRECT#DELETE, criterion 10, perfectly. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 18:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect meets #2, #3, #4, and #5 of the guideline. Dolovis (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe 2, 3 or 4 apply, and this debate will determine the validity of #5. Resolute 17:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Further, it does not fit into WP:REDIRECT#DELETE, criterion 10 (that the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article) because he does not yet meet the criteria stipulated at WP:NHOCKEY. Dolovis (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it's unlikely to ever become an article, probably by NHOCKEY, then it shouldn't even be linked in the first place. If it does reach notability, then it can plausibly be expanded into an article. So it's redlink or no link. I can break it down further:
  1. WP:REDIRECT#DELETE, #10: If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article (just explained), and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject (true). In such a case, it is better that the target article contain a redlink than a redirect back to itself.
  2. WP:REDIRECT#KEEP, #2: "Travis Erstad" is not a misspelling of "2007 NHL Entry Draft".
  3. KEEP, #3: "They aid searches on certain terms." This is the vaguest thing in the world, and therefore shouldn't even be a criterion.
  4. KEEP, #4: The only things that link to the redirect are this discussion, and a single season page. Nothing breaks if we delete it.
  5. KEEP, #5: How exactly do you find this useful? Do you regularly type "Travis Erstad" to be taken to the draft page?

The evidence here is irrefutable. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 19:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

List Of Male Rappers[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 Kept. There is no consensus for deletion so kept. Large nominations like this are not very effective. It is better to handle items like these in manageable groups as suggested by Bridgeplayer. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are low-traffic redirects from mainspace to category-space. Some of them could really be flushed out as Wikipedia lists if they weren't just redirects. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Too wide spread of a list to tackle in one nomination. 117Avenue (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Cross-namespace redirects are bad. Resolute 15:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep all - sometimes a redirect to a category is fine, sometimes not. No way can anyone sensibly assess such a long and diverse list. I have no objection to relisting in like groups; e.g. film years, musicians, sports people, geography, medical etc. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike one; List of Catholic Priests redirected to List of Catholic priests during routine maintainence. - TB (talk) 22:22, 2 December 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_November_25&oldid=1066419148"