Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 5
February 5[edit]
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 5, 2011
Wikipedia:IPBLOCK[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 Close. Talks pages appear to be better forums for this discussion. Ruslik_Zero 19:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be retargeted to WP:Blocking IP addresses? The page WP:IPB already redirects there and I think it would be a better target. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 18:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. On the face of it, I'd say yes it should be retargetted. However, it contains incomming links, is used and has been in place with this target since January 2008. Given this I think you should first link to this proposal for changing the redirect on the talk page of both target articles (and anywhere else you think apropriate, possibly including the talk page of the author of the redirect if they are still active) to see if anyone raises any objections. If nonoe does in a reasonable amount of time, then I'd say go for it - but make sure you add a hatnote link to the old target from the new target. Changing of targets doesn't normally require an RfD - the talk page of one of the related pages (with links from the other) is normally the way to go (if you don't think being WP:BOLD is the right thing to do (and in the case of WP shortcuts I'd tend to always facvur discussion). However as you have started it here, the discussion might as well be here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Americunt[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 as vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete. Derogatory, not mentioned in article. (Disclaimer: I am a US citizen, but, if a reference were provided, or even if it were named in the target article, it would be acceptable.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Speedy-delete as vandalism. Not only is it unsourced and not mentioned in the current article, there was not even a "derogatory nicknames" section in the article at the time that the redirect was created. This does not appear to have been created in good faith. Rossami (talk) 17:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and troutslap originating editor. I've been around the track a couple of times and I've a heard a lot, but I've never heard this. Highly dubious, would require multiple good refs to continue to exist. Herostratus (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Joseph O'Rourke (ex-priest)[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 nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Delete. O'Rourke was a priest until the day he died, the redirect is a factually inaccurate smear. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Keep - I'm afraid he actually was defrocked - [1] - Haymaker (talk) 09:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- I've found better sourcing looking on my own (with different search terms), so I withdraw. (Original source for his ex-priestliness failed verification.) Since you seem to be a step ahead in terms of finding references, I invite you to work on the O'Rourke article, which needs more citations and actually more information in general. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
GHANTESHWARI TEMPLE ORISSA[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 a result of a recent page move from an implausible title. Ruslik_Zero 19:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Non necessary all caps redirect. The name of the temple is not normally spelled in all caps, and seems to have been created accidentally with caps lock on. Ravendrop (talk) 05:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Keep because the redirect helps to document the relatively recent pagemove and because redirects for capitalization variants are one of the preferred uses of redirects. "Unnecessary" is a value judgment and is explicitly not a criterion for deletion of a redirect. Rossami (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. There are lots of good reasons to keep all caps redirects, if there is any slight reason that the term might be typed in all caps - for instance, if it might possibly be perceived as an acronym. MORSE code, or POG, or whatever. But nobody is going to type this in all caps. Unless we want to have all-caps redirects for every article, we don't want this one. There's no need to document the pagemove, as the previous name was just a mistake and not a likely future mistyping. Herostratus (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
- Delete. This particular all-caps redirect is not needed. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)