Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 17, 2011

J-Bird[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 per below consensus. --Taelus (talk) 21:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J-Bird was a third-party Q-bert clone. Said clone is mentioned nowhere in the target. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

T:DEFCON[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. Ruslik_Zero 15:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused; uses a fake "T:" namespace but it's really in mainspace. Only created in June, so not even worth keeping for legacy reasons. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • P:BIO and CAT:CSD are five and six years old respectively. They could be excused on the grounds that they're probably being used by plenty of editors as typing shortcuts when navigating around. T:DEFCON is less then six months old and points at some meta-nonsense. We shouldn't encourage people to drop new cross-namespace redirects into the mainspace unless they're genuinely considered to be a good idea. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

UEFA Champions League 2011–12 top scorer[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 both --Taelus (talk) 09:35, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deletion, it's false — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miguelalmeidatorres (talk • contribs) 19:25 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

PC-Man[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. Ruslik_Zero 16:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PC-Man is a third party clone which is mentioned absolutely nowhere in the target. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:17, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Concepts of mixing the inefficient and medium martial arts methods[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 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concept of mixing the inefficient martial arts methods (recently created redirect to a deleted target). Materialscientist (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was originally renamed during the AfD debate of the targeted article; now it becomes a redirect due to the user recklessness. I am hoping an unopposed delete. Gh87 (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, in addition to maintaining the attribution history as required by our license, this looks like a standard {{R from plural}} to me. We don't normally delete either of those. Thryduulf (talk) 16:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahem... Many people are voting the targeted article for deletion. If the target does not survive, so will not this redirect. --Gh87 (talk) 19:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect was created when the article was very temporarily moved from one title to another and then almost immeidately back, and should therefore be a non-controvertial deletion (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Star Wars Databank[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 Revert to article without prejudice to AfD listing. This shouldn't exist as a redirect in this form. --Taelus (talk) 09:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Wars article has no information about the Star Wars Databank, thus making the link misleading. The Evil IP address (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment/question This has several article-space incomming links and is getting nearly 2000 hits/month, so normally I'd suggest a deletion per WP:REDLINK, however this was redirected to the main article in 2009 with the comment that there was no indication of notability. Has this changed? If not then we don't want an encouraging redlink and should redirect it somewhere - do was have a better target? The databank is it seems used extensively as a reference (cf Template:Star Wars Databank), so even if the incoming links are removed it's going to continue to be a natural search term. In short, a simple deletion is exactly the wrong thing to do here, but I don't know what would be right. Thryduulf (talk) 15:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article to this version without prejudice to it going to AfD. I never like deleting what was once a substantive article through RfD and I share exactly the same reservations as Thryduulf. Wikipedia editors have widely referred to this databank in articles and it seems reasonable to have some explanation of it. If it is not notable then it should be merged somewhere. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article without prejudice to AfD and/or merger per Bridgeplayer. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

UEFA Champions League 2004-2005[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 per below consensus. --Taelus (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion in order to avoid confusion with UEFA Champions League 2004-05 redirect and also when someone types "UEFA Champions League 2004-2005" in search bar, it always goes to article UEFA Champions League video games instead of 2004–05 UEFA Champions League. (This was true until I listed UEFA Champions League 2004-2005 for deletion by putting "{ { rfd } }" above that redirect and it then became an existing page, which means if you type "UEFA Champions League 2004-2005" now in the search bar know it goes to the page which that nominated redirect is.) JuventiniFan (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Champions League Game[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. Lack of internal links is not a reason for deletion. --Taelus (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion since no pages link to Champions League Game redirect and it's an useless redirect consider deleting this redirect as well. JuventiniFan (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, seems like a useful search term to me and it's getting use (typically around 9 hits/month), so unless there is a better target there is no reason to delete this. Thryduulf (talk) 15:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 9 hits per month isn't ENOUGH for keeping a redirect! JuventiniFan (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've struck your "delete", your nomination for deletion counts and you don't get a second !vote. Secondly, redirects are so cheap that 9 hits per month is more than enough to keep a redirect that appears useful - see WP:R#KEEP (particularly points 3 and 6). Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the absence of incoming links is just fine for a redirect. Seems a helpful target and no policy-compliant grounds for deletion have been specified. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Cantonese New + Best Collection[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 --Taelus (talk) 09:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect page was formerly an article for one of Andy Hui's compilation albums. You can see its previous revisions. This page turned from an article to a redirect. Even this fact won't eliminate possibilities for deletion; also, many people cannot type a complicated title like this. Even not using his name makes the title appear to be a compilation of any possible singer or various singers. Gh87 (talk) 06:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - information about this album at the target; harmless and potentially helpful. Also, deletion is contra-indicated for pages with a useful history. Readers tend not to type such terms in; they either copy'n'paste the term from a webpage or start to enter the term in the search box and click the link that is offered. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The album might become notable some day and it could be linked to from other articles. Rymatz (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_August_17&oldid=1138577639"