Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 13
January 13[edit]
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 13, 2011
Tower pound[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 Kept as the content has been reinstated and, while close, it seems to have a more information. There probably should be some de-dupping, but that's outside the scope of RfD. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Delete Keep, because I have deleted the Tower pound section of the Pound (mass) articles on the grounds that I could not find sufficient sources to provide any information about the Tower pound, beyond its bare existence, despite checking websites of National Institute of Standards, the National Physical Laboratory, UK National Measurement Office, UK mint, Tower of London, and Herbert Klein's The Science of Measurement: A Historical Survey.Jc3s5h (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- User: Martinvl has managed to find some not-so-bad citations and restore the target section. The citations themselves contain citations, which I hope to investigate if I can get my hands on them. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Keep.Your evidence does, however, document the existence of the subject. And while the current content has been deleted from the target article, it remains in the page history and may someday be restored (assuming, of course, that adequate sources are eventually found). If/when that happens, we will need the redirect back because the redirect's pagehistory documents the content that was merged in at that time. Until then, the redirect is doing no apparent harm. Rossami (talk) 22:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)- Retarget to English units#Troy and tower, where it is noted what the tower pound is/was. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Desiree Jennings controversy[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.
Unhelpful redirect: not mentioned in the target article. This article was previously deleted at AFD; it should just have been left as a red link, since this redirect isn't going to help anybody. Robofish (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Keep It is more helpful than no redirect since it says that the controversy is vaccine related. Possibly it should have been left as a red link, but it wasn't. Rich Farmbrough, 12:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC).
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Keep or retarget. While it's true that the name is not mentioned in the target article, it continues to get a significant number of hits post deletion of the article that was at this title. This suggests that it's linked to from somewhere off Wikipedia and people are continuing to look for it - which is a good reason to have something at this title. The consensus at the AfD was clearly against having an article about her, and consensus at a DRV resulted in no consensus regarding the writing of any new article but leaning towards the rejection of a specific userspace draft article. A quick google suggests nothing significant has changed since the October 2010 DRV. This suggests that if anything is to have consensus for being at this title, it is a redirect, but this leaves the question of where it should point. Rich Farmbrough suggests that pointing it at the current location is "better than nothing" as it informs the reader that the controversy was a vaccine controversy, and I can't disagree with that. It is however far from ideal, and I would support retargetting to somewhere that gives the reader more than this should anyone do better at finding that somewhere than I have been. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- The related AFD can be read here. Given the difficulty maintaining the page, this seems to be another redirect which is quietly preempting users from recreating a page that we've decided we don't want. Keep. Rossami (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Zacky's Quest[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.
Zacky's Quest is a Webkinz Frogger clone, but it's not discussed in the article and doesn't appear to have been discussed there at any time in the past. This is just going to confuse anyone searching on it, since we don't have any content specifically on the subject that this redirect refers to. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- retarget to List of Webkinz games, in which list the title is included. It notes that it is similar to Frogger in the first coloumn, so those wanting information about that game can still easily locate the article. Thryduulf (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- I can't believe I missed that. I'm perfectly happy with retargeting this, then. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)