Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 19[edit]

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

):-o[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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rational as per above: If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. I actually came across this by typing ")" in the search bar when I really meant 0. XRDoDRX (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This has been around since 2007 without causing any problems, gets 300-500 hits/month (compare with 15-20 for :-(), and it seems like a very sensible target (it is an emoticon), so I fail to see why you cite that rationale. Thryduulf (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this and all the other emoticon redirects. While this one was first created as a redirect, most of the rest were turned into redirects in order to preempt the endless recreation of DICDEF pages for each individual emoticon. Redirecting to the general concept stopped the problem (and made watchlisting easier so we can be sure they're not recurring). I see no evidence of confusion or harm from these redirects. Might be appropriate to tag them with {{unprintworthy}}, though. Rossami (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure we'd want to exclude these from the search drop down list though, as people do evidently search for them. Thryduulf (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commment List of emoticons might be a more helpful redirect ?Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on which target is better. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

List of plagiarised Bollywood films[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  Relisted to Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_January_28. Please leave further comments there. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:28, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such list at the target, and there's not likely to be one in the future. There are a large number of redirects to this article containing variations of "Bollywood" and "plagiarism" that are not being nominated here, and any of them is a better search term than these redirects that falsely imply the presence of a list of plagiarized films. Note that these redirects do have some history as previous attempts to write such a list. — Gavia immer (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • While there is no list in the Plagerism section of the Bollywood article, there are a number of chosen examples. It appears that at least some of the content on the original list may have been merged into that prose section. Keep primarily to preserve the history and secondarily to continue to preempt the re-creation of these unwanted lists. (Note that the number of redirects here are the result of a multi-step pagemove, not necessarily independent list creations.) Tag with {{unprintworthy}} or other tag to suppress their inclusion in the search prefill. Rossami (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Statue of Ramesses II (Memphis open air museum)[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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Formerly the title of a stub. The content was merged into the Memphis, Egypt article as a subsection last year. The redirect is now an orphan. Nightw 07:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep to maintain the attribution history per licensing requirements. We don't delete redirects in these circumstances. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to preserve history. Rossami (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Toby Proctor.[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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Left-behind redirect from a page move to the correct title. Just the name with a period at end. Not necessary. Kinu t/c 03:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Redirects are automatically created by the pagemove process for several good reasons. "Not necessary" is not a reason for deletion. Rossami (talk) 04:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nomination was based on the fact that this redirect does not appear to meet any of the criteria suggested by WP:R#KEEP. There is no needed page history there after the page move, no internal linkage, low likelihood of meaningful external linkage or existence in the histories of other articles to this page (the page was moved about one hour after creation), and it is an unlikely typo or search term. --Kinu t/c 04:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy) delete. WP:CSD#R3 covers page moves from implausible titles (which this certainly is) if they (a) are recently created and (b) have no significant page history. This certainly satisfies (b), but just over 3 weeks ago is in my personal grey area between "recent" and "not recent". Thryduulf (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible redirect. How many people type in <name>. in the search box? PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Delete - This is no longer recent (it should have been deleted the day it was moved). However, I checked the "What links here", and the only links to that page are from the RfD and various user pages, which appear to be due to the notice. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible redirect. I think it might qualify for G6 speedy deletion, but it appears to be controversial. Redirects due to a page move are no longer necessary for GFDL histories. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Austro-Daimler Sascha[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 (non-admin closure) →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 00:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Austro-Daimler Sascha directs to Austro-Daimler. incorrect redirect, please remove. Austro-Daimler Sascha is a cartype, where Austro-Daimler is a brand which produced several types of cars. regards Saschaporsche (talk) 06:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A reasonable search term, and until such a time the article on the car model is created, it is helpful for those searching for the model to be redirected to the manufacturer than nowhere at all, as it is discussed in that article. --Kinu t/c 06:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as {{R with possibilities}}, this is a textbook example of redirecting a specific title to a more general one until the more general one is written. If you want to write an article about the specific model of car, then you can just overwrite the redirect with our article - you don't need to delete it first. If you do overwrite the redire before this discussion is closed, please mention it here (putting a note at talk:Austro-Daimler, whether before or after this discussion ends) would be helpful as well). Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've added the RfD tag to the redirect and fixed the formatting of the nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 19 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_19&oldid=1140201170"