Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 5, 2011

Kohl's law[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Same as above. Punchline to a lame old pun, unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cole's law[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect term, punchline to a hoary old pun. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, potentially misleading with no discernible value.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been through the create-redirect-nominate-for-deletion cycle once already. This is its second time. This redirect thus seems to be fulfilling a fairly good prophylactic purpose by existing: namely, stopping us going around and around this same cycle yet more times, which would undoubtedly happen in the future if it were deleted, given that that has already happened. Keep. Uncle G (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a reason to keep a redirect. We could always just delete it and salt it instead? Mhiji 14:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because, as Uncle G says, it's easier to maintain (and watchlist) a redirect than to watch for and continuously speedy-delete the inappropriate article that otherwise gets created here. Rossami (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not a reason to keep a redirect. That's why we have salt protection. Mhiji 14:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The policy on salting a pagetitle is that it is to be used only very rarely and only for the worst repeatedly-recreated and abused pagetitles - and even then, it is to be temporary. Preemptive redirects can be used more liberally. Rossami (talk) 06:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:“Joe Greene Great Performance Award”[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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has "curly quotes", which are not possible to type on most systems. Quotes are not even needed anyway. — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per R3. Mhiji 09:35, 5 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_5&oldid=1148047522"