Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 4, 2011

Template:Template:TCACycle WP78 offset[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. TexasAndroid (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a relatively pointless redirect created in the distant past. No pages link to it. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I would have done it myself, but by that time I'd relinquished my admin tools. —Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Gemini Corporation[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) 13:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect. Current redirect not linked to. The company that it redirects to does not appear to use the name Gemini Corporation as a common form, and there are several other companies that go directly by the name e.g. http://www.geminicorp.ca/ Svgalbertian (talk) 19:05, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Politik[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 Disambiguate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest retarget, probably to Politics. "Politik" is the German word for "politics", it doesn't mean "Realpolitik" at all, Realpolitik is just one kind of politics, there are many more. There's also a Coldplay song, however it doesn't have sufficient notability to be included on Wikipedia. There may be better options available, but surely a redirect to "Realpolitik" isn't a good one. The Evil IP address (talk) 18:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Those are all reasonable points. Be bold! Or maybe post the proposal on the Talk page if you'd like feedback but it doesn't need to be discussed here. Rossami (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate per choices discussed. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The Shalom Show on television[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 (non-admin closure). Acather96 (talk) 10:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term, minimal use. R3 declined for no good reason. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this documents a recent page move, gets a fair few hits and conflicts with nothing, which are all good reasons to keep. There are no reasons to delete that have been presented here. The title was not recently created so the R3 was correctly declined. Thryduulf (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The show's web page is titled "The Shalom Show on TV" and someone might search for this variation. Cullen328 (talk) 19:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Civil Recovery Demands (Shoplifting)[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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly phrased, redundant parentheses, unused. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Kudos for moving the page to a better title but the article existed at the old title for over three years prior to your move. Not only are there potential external links to that old title, there are still internal inbound links to that title. The redirect helps to document the pagemove, preempts linkrot and helps guide the prior editors of the page to the new location for their content. Incidentally, the traffic statistics show hundreds of hits per month. I'm not sure how that counts as "unused". Rossami (talk) 19:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Children's interests (reasoning)[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. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant, unused. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep to help document this latest in a long series of title changes. The pagehistory traces back to 2005. It existed at this title since June 2010. This redirect is currently an orphan but the traffic statistics show hundreds of hits per month, suggesting that either the orphaning was very recent or that it is externally linked. While the old title was less than ideal, it is not in the way of anything else and is not obviously confusing or harmful. Rossami (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Black athletic superiority[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 (and refine target). -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, not what the target article is about. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and redirect to a section within Race and sports. Valid search term. The article was originally about "black athletic superiority", however, the article name was changed without discussion or consensus to Race and sports then "white-washed" to remove reference to the original subject. Per the discussion on Talk:Race and sports, there is room for both subjects in Wikipedia. Location (talk) 07:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to a section (changed from delete) Name violates NPOV. Should Wikipedia have an article called Democratic Politics Superiority? Or Republican Politics Superiority? Lots of people believe strongly in either alternative. But both violates NPOV. As do this title.Miradre (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that redirecting the former article to a section in the new article is a good solution.Miradre (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I changed the title of the "Jon Entine" section to "Black athletic superiority".Miradre (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The history section pertains to the discussion of "black athletic superiority", so I have made that the beginning of the section. Jon Entine's views are one of many, so I have removed the header for that section. I have also put the title of "Black athletic superiority" in quotes to emphasize that it is a belief and not necessarily recognized as fact. Location (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and redirect to section. A much discussed aspect of sports for decades now (particularly in the US). If the redirected topic were to expand in future then perhaps race and athleticism would be a more appropriate title – any good treatment of the subject would look at the various proposed alignments of the two ideas, not solely black athletes. SFB 13:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

St Andrew Street Hertford[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. Attribution is not an issue & only a few hits a month means it more likely to be web spiders than humans. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page was created, and then was copy&paste moved unmodified to its target by the only author a few hours later. This title seems like an unlikely search name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, not only is it recording the attribution history (doubly important where c&p moves are concerned) but it also seems to me to be a useful search term. It's consistently getting 5-10 hits a month, which suggests that I'm not the only one who believes in its usefulness. Tag with {{unprintworthy}} though, as this will stop it appearing in the search box pre-fill, Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Preserving history is only necessary when the first page has some significant author other than the user who created the second. In this case, there isn't any. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Attribution is not an issue in this case, since the content that was cut-and-pasted originally had been contributed by the same user. In my opinion, 5–10 hits per month is not enough to worry about; and the redirect is not especially useful for searches, since anyone who types "St Andrew Street" into the search box will see the target article in the drop-down list. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been stated here time and time again, there are many other different ways to search and browse Wikipedia than the search box, most (if not all) of which do not have the suggestions feature. 5-10 hits a month is up to 10 people per month that we will be inconveniencing for no good reason if this is deleted - what benefit will deleting it bring? Thryduulf (talk) 07:42, 15 April 2011 (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/2011_April_4&oldid=1138577630"