Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 19[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 19, 2011

Sinistral and dextral (disambiguation)[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 deleted by Athaenara as CSD G7. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sinistral and dextral article was formerly a disambiguation article, however it is not anymore. See the article's talk page. These redirects remain from the DAB article attempt, but should now be deleted. +mt 23:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete all as G7 and tagged as such. The nominator recently created these and is the only contributor. No useful history. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:42, 19 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.

United airlines flight 634[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 per argument that the redirect points to a section containing relevant information. Arguments that this was deleted at AfD carry no weight because the value of this as a redirect is not determined by article notability guidelines, nor does this meet any of the redirect deletion criteria. Consensus can change, and this is ineligible for CSD G6 or G4. --Taelus (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at this edit there was an incident at Newark Liberty International Airport, the contents of the article removed and the redirect was set to the airport. As per WP:Aircrash it is not notable. I feel it has no use being redirected to the airport. JetBlast (talk) 23:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Relevant information is contained at the target so this redirect is exactly doing its job. We also don't outright delete redirects with useful history. Agreed it is not notable but that's why it's a redirect not an article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete per G6 possibly G4 we deleted the article in an overwhelming fashion, and this redirect was created as essentially a bad recreation of the original article and should have been deleted as G4 instead of redirected. The keep argument ignores that in effect, the deletion discussion also deleted this redirect by definition, even if it was created a few weeks later. We would be overturning the delete to a redirect if we allow this. I am not comfortable with us doing that.--Cerejota (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Sorry to appear argumentative, but I think there is some misunderstanding here. This page does not meet any speedy criterion. G4 is for technical or housekeeping deletions which this plainly would not be. G6 is for recreations and a redirect is not a recreation of an article. AfD decides the fate of an article; it does not prevent a redirect being created. Indeed, making a redirect is entirely normal for non-notable or deleted subjects. We only delete redirects if they are in some way harmful and this has not been shown to be harmful. In order to be deleted one of the criteria in WP:RFD#DELETE must be met without an overriding WP:RFD#KEEP reason also applying. Again, that is not the case here. If the present target is a problem then a retarget to 2010 in aviation#January would be an acceptable alternative. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The usual target for redirects such as these is the article on the airline, targeted at the "accidents and incidents" section of the article. Mjroots (talk) 19:44, 30 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.

Aniconism in the Bahá'í Faith[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 as nomination withdrawn. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - This redirect should be expanded into an article (like the aniconism articles about the other religions listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aniconism#Religion). While the current target does indeed contain pertinent information, this information should be reproduced in it's own article so that members of the Baha'i Faith can learn about aniconism in their faith without being forced to view photographs of their religion's Founder, which, as the target article content and Discussion pages clearly indicate, are quite objectionable. Ryancamp1 (talk) 20:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RETRACT REQUEST FOR DELETION: Sorry, I don't know how to do this since it seems to require moderator approval. Anyway, I noticed that the redirect page has a history and discussion associated with it. After reading through that, I think it's better to retract this request for deletion and instead restore the previously existing page for it. Ryancamp1 (talk) 20:48, 19 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.

Template:Contradict section[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, no arguments that it does any harm, arguments that it may help new users in the future. --Taelus (talk) 13:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - This redirected template isn't transcluded anywhere and is only linked to from a couple of user-page lists (plus my own post). It serves very little purpose, as typing {{Contradict section}} is the equivalent of typing {{Contradict|section}}. – RobinHood70 talk 18:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: {{Contradict section}} is currently only a redirect to {{Contradict}}. Contrary to my previous statement, it is not currently the equivalent of typing {{Contradict|section}}. If the template is kept, it should probably be reverted from a redirect to its previous functionality so that it returns to being the equivalent of {{Contradict|section}}. – RobinHood70 talk 04:14, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is much inconsistency between how article-space cleanup tags are applied to sections ({{X section}}, {{X-section}}, {{X|section}}, {{X|section=yes}}, {{X|type=section}} and possibly others) so it is very useful to have these sorts of redirects to help users (especially new editors) achieve what they are attempting to. I think there is one or more bots that bypass redirects like this when doing things like dating tags, which may explain there appearing to be no transclusions - anyway lack of links or transclusions is explicitly not a reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well, two actually. I don't disagree with the reasoning, and I thought that might be the response, but see the comment I added above. Sorry for not mentioning that originally, but I'd forgotten about that issue until now. Second comment, on the bot issue, I don't believe there are any bots renaming this one, as when I first looked at this template a few weeks ago, I remember renaming the only actual transclusion, and it was a few months old. – RobinHood70 talk 04:14, 20 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.

Captain New Zelaand[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 delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely meaningless. ╟─TreasuryTag►fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale─╢ 17:57, 19 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.

Template:Logo fur/testcases[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 --Taelus (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is seemingly now unused, with the test cases having been relocated to the target of this redirect? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:40, 19 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_19&oldid=1146351203"