Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 23[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 23, 2010

Stryker vehicle controversy[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. T. Canens (talk) 03:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Was merged. Determined that there was no real controversy. orphaned. Marcus Qwertyus 18:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - where an article has been merged then deletion would breach our GFDL licence. There are alternatives to keeping but this is a well-used search term (nearly 2,000 hits last month) and the nominator has offered no policy-compliant grounds for deletion, so keeping is the simplest and most sensible way forward. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think I was notified because I was the one who actually performed the merger. IIRC the AFD closed as "merge", which means the information is merged and the title redirected. I stumbled across this because it had an invalid prod tag, the information had already been merged, so I just did the redirecting. Unlike categories, which are merged and then deleted, articles whose AFDs close as merge are merged and then redirected. Per Bridgeplayer it's a useful search term, so no reason to delete the redirect, IMO. Dana boomer (talk) 19:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy procedural keep WP:GFDL. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment nominator's rationale is wrong, since it was determined there really is controversy about it. Seems like trying to make a point, in denying controversy, by erasing the evidence. 76.66.199.238 (talk) 04:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No controversy. Just a guy running a website with a small following who has a grudge with the Stryker for replacing his beloved M113. Marcus Qwertyus 22:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I remember watching those Congressional hearings on TV about the Stryker, when Congressmen tried to force the Army to rethink it's Stryker policy. So, I don't see how you can say there's no controversy. 76.66.196.13 (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have an obsession with deleting this though Stryker vehicle controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) . 76.66.196.13 (talk) 08:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

2026 Winter Olympics[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 closed - I have converted back to an article and prodded. Making a redirect then smartly bringing it here is a form of back-door deletion that solves nothing. We should address the underlying article. If the Prod is shifted then it should go to AFD for a consensus decision. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article's been around since 2008 and it's been "created" into a too early article a few times in the last few months... all in all it's absorbed way more editor attention that is ever warranted for a bi-annual (olypmics in general) event over a decade away... If it gets recreated then it's a simple crystal delete at AfD or prod. We need to stop wasting editor mindspace on the same obvious entries Shadowjams (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:State[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 as the link target was deleted at TFD. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 01:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A common error in template programming is to mistake {{{state|autocollapse}}} with {{state|autocollapse}}} or {{{state|autocollapse}}, which causes this redirect to be transcluded. I just cleaned up about 50 of these. I have also seen this redirect mistakenly used instead of {{flag}}. Of the 200 transclusions that I cleaned up today, none were actual correct uses, so I believe it is safe to say this template redirect is not being used. Plastikspork (talk) 08:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this doesn't make sense, what does state have to do with city-region? 76.66.199.238 (talk) 04:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Peter Diamond (professor)[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. Completely useless redirect. Evenfiel (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a former article that has been part of a merge. It needs further investigation but deletion could breach our GFDL licence. In any case it is an accurate description and entirely harmless so there are no grounds for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - When you search for "Peter Diamond", you get the suggestions "Peter Diamond (economist)" and "Peter Diamond (professor)". It sounds like these are two different persons. Besides, "professor" is a really generic term. More precisely, Peter Diamond is an economist, and even got the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. Evenfiel (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - "It sounds like these are two different persons." doesn't matter; plenty of people have alternative name forms in the search box. What counts is that both name forms take readers to the same, and correct, person.
  • Keep per Bridgeplayer. The pages have some parallel history so merging the edit histories is out of the question. The history has to be preserved – otherwise it would seem that these edits were made by Buldri (the user who performed the merge), instead of Graham (the user who actually made the edits here). There are alternative ways to preserve the edit history (see Wikipedia:Merge and delete), but considering that this redirect is not particularly harmful it would be the most simple solution to keep this page where it is. Jafeluv (talk) 16:25, 31 October 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_October_23&oldid=1138577481"