Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 March 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 20, 2011

U.S.A.)[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). Acather96 (talk) 18:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion. An implausible redirect with only 2 pages linking to it. Kumioko (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The inbound links alone demonstrate that the typo is plausible. The traffic statistics reinforce that observation. They are low but consistent over time. It may seem an unlikely redirect to you and I but it's plainly helpful to someone. It creates no obvious confusion or harm. That is sufficient to keep a redirect. Rossami (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Big-City America[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 Result was: Retarget to List of United States cities by population. -- MacMedtalkstalk 22:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Recommend delete. Implausible redirect that doesn't link to anything currently Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a redirect to something. This is a well-used phrase, and the redirect gets 10-40 hits per month. The only question is whether the current target is the best, and I'm not sure to be honest. We don't have an exact article title, but List of United States cities by population is the top-rated Wikipedia article in google-search for the phrase, but whether this is better than the current target (which is not bad) I don't know. As has been noted with many of your other nominations over the past couple of days, lack of incoming links is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur with Thryduulf. Keep but not necessarily as-is. Rossami (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of United States cities by population. A user entering this would likely be looking for information on big cities, not about the country. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 23:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

WC 1987[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. No prejudice against disambigs being written in place of them. But the redirects, as is, appear misleading. I will even gladly restore the history of the redirects behind any disambigs that actually get written. But for now, the redirects themselves look to be worse than nothing. TexasAndroid (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • These were all rather clumsily created via pagemove and revert but the edit summaries in the moved pages make clear that it was the user's intent to create redirects at these titles. The creator's lack of experience is not evidence of bad faith. Since it's not vandalism and the redirects are not in obvious conflict with some other title, that leaves me at keep because no reason to delete has been given. Rossami (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above unless there is a better place that they should be redirecting to.AerobicFox (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no need to create pages specifically to redirect them to other pages. Unless they are alternate names of the same topic. It would be an absolutely rare occasion, if at all for someone to go to WC xxxx in search of a world cup article. Unnecessary redirect. ashwinikalantri talk 17:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also there are no pages linking to these pages, except for this discussion page and a user page! ashwinikalantri talk 17:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami and Aerobic Fox. Creating pages specifically as redirects to help people find articles from likely search terms is explicitly recommended. Even in the case of non-obvious search terms we do not delete redirects that are doing no harm. Lack of incoming internal links is explicitly not a reason to delete redirects - most redirects should be orphans. Thryduulf (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disambiguate as necessary. After the comments below I've looked at google hits for a few of these phrases and in no case is cricket the only result. 2003 also shows rugby and badminton, 1983 is primarily cricket but there was also world cups or world championships in gymnastics and table tennis. Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate conflicts with all the other world cups and world championships from those years. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or disambiguate Rugby world cups, for example, have a very similar annual cycle and users searching for those abbrevations could equally be searching for them Dtellett (talk) 13:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Name is not used therefore should probably been speedyed. Wilbysuffolk talk 05:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Americay[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 Irish American (non-admin closure). Acather96 (talk) 18:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend delete. Not sure how this came to be a redirect to United States Kumioko (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps some of us make typos? Soxwon (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This does get 10 hits a month or so the problem is there is an Insurance company and several other things by that name so I cannot confirm what the searchers are looking for but I find it unlikely that the Majority would be looking for the US with this term. --Kumioko (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget. This does appear to be an alternate spelling of "America" in the sense of the USA. The only article that we currently have that might be a better target is On the Shores of Americay (an album). I can see no benefit to deleting this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this redirect. It's an Irishism for "America", i.e. the USA. If there's some actual company called "Americay", then it could be a different story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because no reason for deletion was given. No objection to retargetting as Baseball Bugs proposes, though. Rossami (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Americaland[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). Acather96 (talk) 18:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend delete. This is an unlikely redirect that only has 2 links (both are talk pages). Americaland when googled brings up a Times magazine article and I would argue that anyone who would be looking for this would also know the Actual name (United States) or one of the dozens of more realistic redirect possibilities. Kumioko (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, all uses of "Americaland" are related to the United States or to a song on the Out of the Wilderness album. The article about the album mentions it only in passing so would not be a brilliant target. What exactly would be gained by deleting this redirect? Lack of internal links is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect, and as its been getting 5-20 hits each month for the past year, it is useful to some. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Again, no reason for deletion has been given. Redirects are supposed to be orphans. Rossami (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Naimark[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 Disambig as prototyped on the page already. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion. I came across this redirect while searching for Norman Naimark. While the two surnames may be related, people typing "Naimark" are probably looking for people named "Naimark", not people named "Neumark". TFD (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disambiguate. Norman Naimark, Michael Naimark, Naimark's problem, Naimark's dilation theorem, Arnold Naimark and Mark Naimark are all possible search targets. Barry Naimark may or may not also be notable for an article (I've not looked in detail). A see also to the Neumark (surname) page would maintain the present link. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move then Convert to dab I think that Naimark could be moved to Naimark (surname). Naimark (surname) could then be converted to a dab page. --Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Naimark for Neumark is a reasonable transliteration. Disambiguation does look appropriate, though. (As a side note, I consider "Naimark (surname)" unnecessary. It also wouldn't properly handle the two mathematical theorums.) "Neumark" can be cross-linked as an alternative on the disambiguation page. Rossami (talk) 01:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make Surname list article. Lists of surname-holders are anthroponymy list articles, not disambiguation pages. And the mathematical theorems are partial title matches WP:PTM, not ambiguous with the title "Naimark". If needed for some reason, they could be listed in a "See also" section of the list article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically this is a G5 speedy, created by banned user Sheynhertz-Unbayg. I recommend a disambiguation page that does not mix transliterations. —Кузьма討論 11:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sockpuppetry is a serious allegation, especially if it is being used to evade a ban. History shows this redirect as created by User:Macherman, an account that is still in active use, is not blocked and has no talkpage notices alleging inappropriate use. If you have evidence showing that this user account is a block-evasion, please present it at the Administrators Noticeboard so the matter can be investigated. Rossami (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The behavioral evidence is fairly clear (see Wikipedia:SU for some previous examples). I would block and tag the account if there was any point in that, but there isn't: he has moved on to a new account already anyway (he never sticks around on an account after people have tried to contact him on the talk page). —Кузьма討論 05:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did add the name to the SPI case (won't do much good as usual). —Кузьма討論 06:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

United States (of America)[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). Acather96 (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend delete. Unlikely redirect. Only links to a couple user pages. Kumioko (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is used (15-20 views/month) and is doing no harm. What would be the benefit to the encyclopaedia of deleting it? Thryduulf (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This redirect was created back in 2006 as a result of me reverting a unilateral page move, and admins like me back then did not yet have the checkbox option on the Page Move screen as to whether to "Leave a redirect behind". Because "Redirects are cheap", I basically left the resulting redirect to "block" the other user from reverted back to the "United States (of America)" title. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above since it is receiving hits and is cheap.AerobicFox (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because no reason for deletion has been presented. Rossami (talk) 01:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Americans (USA)[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 People of the United States. TexasAndroid (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend deletion. Unlikely redirect. Most users would pick one or the other. Only links to a couple of talk pages. Kumioko (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to American (disambiguation). "American" is ambiguous and it is far from unlikely to guess that our article on either the culture or people of the USA would be at this title. As we can't be sure which of several likely articles they are looking for, the dab page that lists them all should be the target. Ideally, most redirects should be orphans, so having few incomming internal links is explicitly not a reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I've added American (USA), the singular form, to this nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the (USA) pretty much, unequivocally, means that the user is searching for Americans for the USA, so I don't think there is any real concern for ambiguity or reason to retarget to the disambiguation page. That being said I vote Keep because American just takes us to the disambiguation page, and "People of the United States" is almost as unlikely search term as "American (USA)".(I would think American would be the most common) AerobicFox (talk) 23:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This redirect has been around for over 4 years without creating any confusion or harm. I can see the argument for retargetting but on the whole, I agree with AerobicFox that the usual interpretation would be "people of the US". The edit summary at point of first creation confirms that was the original intent as well. Rossami (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Sudheerpdv[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 speedily deleted by Fuhghettaboutit under criterion G6 (uncontroversial cleanup). Thryduulf (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There does not appear to be any connection between this term(?) and the village in question. Redirect was created by an SPA with the same name as the redirect. Is definitely a COI, may be promotional. Ravendrop 02:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can speedy delete this. This was a user page(I think that's what they were trying) that they forgot to move to the correct namespace. I moved it to the correct name space, but I forgot to delete the redirect.AerobicFox (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Went ahead and nominated for speedy deletion.AerobicFox (talk) 02:53, 20 March 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_March_20&oldid=1142587629"