Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 2, 2011

Sofia Wilėn[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecesaary redirect, contravenes WP:BLP on several grounds. Redirect without the acute accent and the other woman in this case have been removed previously.

  • Could you specify how this contravenes BLP? Your statement is vague to say the least. Is this not the name of one of the women making accusations at Mr. Assange? Is that not already a matter of very public record? They even know her name in India:[1] so I think the cat is well and truly out of the bag regardless of what we do with this redirect. I would argue that the deleted redirects should be re-instated as it is likely readers (the persons we are trying to help by creating redirects) will come here looking for more information and will search these names. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The readers we are trying to attract will look up Assange first, WP:BLP1E is the most relevant reason to delete this redirect. It is difficult to take seriously a user named after an intergalatic confidence trickster. Philip Cross (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "the readers we are trying to attract". Do you mean to say there's a type of reader we are not trying to attract?--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why does the user's username have anything to do with this? Please no personal attacks. Mhiji (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-BLP1E would argue against an article on Willen herself, sure. However, a redirect to a section of another article covering the event for which she is notable is perfectly reasonable.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; consensus is currently to keep these names out of the article because they are of no particular interest or notability at this stage and BLP cautions us to exercise caution and restraint in naming people in these contexts. Nothing much is served by this redirect except to prove the point and subvert the consensus of not using the names at this stage. Can be easily recreated in the future if this individual becomes relevant (i.e. if it goes to trial) --Errant (chat!) 14:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 20:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Catupmerge[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. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bypass redirect for transcluding pages and delete - In January 2009, Pegship created a tag for stub categories with only upmerged stub tags. While the tag itself was a good idea, I think that the name the user gave it wasn't; I have moved the tag to a better name. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • WikiProject Stub Sorting has been notified of this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:12, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As long as the target template is kept, the redirect to it should be kept as well. The redirects created by the pagemove process are helpful to editors who are familiar with the old name. The new name may be better but the redirect does no observable harm. Rossami (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Stainton, Cumbria (near Penrith)[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a nearly useless disambiguated form, similar to the deleted Round Maple redirects from the RfD's on December 21. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am the nominator. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, highly unlikely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very unlikely, and could set a precedent for stupid numbers of redirects if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all contributors above, highly unlikely--J3Mrs (talk) 14:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Clatterford End[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. JohnCD (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These are near useless disambiguated forms, similar to the deleted Round Maple redirects from the RfD 21 December, created by that same user. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I am the nominator. 65.94.45.209 (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete very unlikely, and could set a precedent for stupid numbers of redirects if allowed to remain. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator and User:Ilikeeatingwaffles, all highly unlikely--J3Mrs (talk) 14:33, 6 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_2&oldid=1066419231"