Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 1, 2011

The land of ham[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 to Ham (son of Noah)#Etymology. Logan Talk Contributions 00:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a quasi-religious-scientific theory that the descendants of Ham were black, and hence in Africa. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or retarget per Headbomb. From a google search the Land of Ham refers specifically to Egypt, but prior to the deletion nomination this had a total of 3 hits so it doesn't seem particularly useful. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ham (son of Noah)#Etymology, where the explanation is given that "Land of Ham" = Egypt, as well as other additional details. The Egypt article is sort of a bad target for this... Ancient Egypt would be a better target, but a reader might be very confused when landing there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i think it is a great idea to move it to Egypt instead of africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaip2014 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

99999[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. Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no relevance in this redirect, since the year 99999 isn't one of the variety of years mentioned in 11th millennium and beyond. I'm open to ideas of suitable alternative redirect targets, but it seems unlikely that anyone is going to search for the number 99999 in an attempt to find a particular article. Note the mere handful of hits over the past month, for example. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is five 9's, could be confused with 99.999% purity, such as mentioned for ore refinement (like 24k gold) 65.94.45.209 (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not especially likely to refer to the year; not mentioned in target. Ucucha 13:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Air disasters of 2011[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. Lenticel (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There haven't been any air disasters (yet) in 2011, and the section doesn't even exist on the redirected page. Logan Talk Contributions 10:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Kolavia Flight 348 is 2011 incident, the list needs updating. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Kolavia Flight 348 will not be the only accident in 2011 that gets and article on Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Since the nom, an accident/incident has been added to the page so now no reason to delete. Mhiji 18:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:05ArbElecRC[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. Logan Talk Contributions 01:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No longer relevant. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. No good reason to delete provided; there is a link and the existence of the redirect does no harm. Ucucha 13:21, 2 January 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_January_1&oldid=1144727978"