Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 6, 2011

Brother HL-1250[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. Now that this is an article (again) it is outwith the scope of RfD. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded unused redirect; previously a worthless article on non-notable product. Dicklyon (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The author turned it back from a redirect to an article, and then another editor tagged it for speedy deletion. We'll see what happens. The author has already done bad edits after final warning, but hasn't been blocked for it yet. It's not a "vandalism-only" account, but "junk-only". Dicklyon (talk) 22:19, 6 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.

Wiki-Hobbes[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. Cross-namespace redirects are normally subject to speedy deletion, and nobody has suggested any reason why this one should be an exception. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect that serves no purpose. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem it was Wiki-Hobbes. You CHANGED IT. Firefoxcub (talk)

Yep, I did. That is how WikiFauna are named. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed he was correct to do so. That belongs, if anywhere, in the Wikipedia namespace, not the mainspace. Delete the redirect. LadyofShalott 01:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - cross-namespace redirects can be OK, exceptionally, if there is a good reason, but absolutely not in this case!! Bridgeplayer (talk)
  • Delete. Article to project CNRs are only justified in a few, limited cases. There is no need to make this target easily reached by inexperienced new users; it has not got a long history in article space; and it is a conceivable that an article could be at this title (I expected it to be about a Wikia Wiki about the works of Thomas Hobbes). Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 6 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.

MIET (NRU)[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 result is delete MIET (NRU) and MIET-TU but to keep the Moscow State Institute of Electronic Technology (National Research University) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating on behalf of User:Alex_Spade in order to gain consensus. (Previous nomination was a big wall of text which none voted on, thus splitting down into separate nominations.) Taelus (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Original users nomination rationale are as follows:
Other redirects to National Research University of Electronic Technology

They were created as results of edit warring during period between University received NRU-status (in May 2010) and labeled NRU-status in new official Ru and En names (June 2011). New official Ru and En names can be found on updated pages with Contact information and Charter of MIET. Alex Spade (talk) 08:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ru-official name (before May 2010): Московский государственный институт электронной техники (технический университет), МИЭТ
lit. Moscow State Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University)
En-official name (before May 2010): Moscow Institute of Electronic Technology (Technical University), TU MIET
Ru-official name (after June 2011): Национальный исследовательский университет «МИЭТ», МИЭТ
lit. National Research University «MIET»
En-official name (after June 2011): National Research University of Electronic Technology, MIET
  • MIET (NRU)
Unused unofficial/erroneous variant (Google). Alex Spade (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • MIET-TU
Very rarely used unofficial/erroneous variant (Google). Alex Spade (talk) 14:26, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moscow State Institute of Electronic Technology (National Research University)
Google gives variants without State (or without National Research University). Alex Spade (talk) 08:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that these two cases are similar. The disscussed variant is mix of old and new name. The term State is superflous in this case, there is not another Moscow State Institute of Electronic Technology for usage of specification National Research University (the variant Moscow State Institute of Electronic Technology (without specification) is enough different - it was official name). Alex Spade (talk) 13:28, 16 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.

National Research University MAI[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 result is keep both. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating on behalf of User:Alex_Spade Taelus (talk) 10:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Original rationale is as follows:

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
  • Note: Per discussion on my talk page [3] this relisting has been moved from yesterday's page
    to here to keep the context with the above MIET (NRU) discussion. Apologies for any confusion or
    inconvenience. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. You have convinced me in this topic. But, I suggest both of them must be kept. Alex Spade (talk) 13:19, 16 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_6&oldid=1138447960"