Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 May 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 30[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 30, 2011

Radiation and health[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 Disambiguate. -- JLaTondre (talk) 12:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This needless page was created recently by someone who apparently does not understand the difference between ionizing (nuclear) and non-ionizing (EMF) radiation. I've created a stop-gap change to make it redirect to something at least relating to nuclear radiation, but that's not a solution and this page should be deleted. Softlavender (talk) 22:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: the target listed above is the original, the current destination is Ionizing radiation#Biological effects. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Radiation and health" is a very useful search term, and it should not be a redlink. Whether it should be an article or, if not, what the best target for a redirect is I'm not sure yet. Thryduulf (talk) 00:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one is suggesting it be a redlink. There are no articles that link to this page. The page should simply be deleted. Softlavender (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that it's a possible search term. I'd retarget this to Radiation if there's no better target, although the general article doesn't really cover health issues much. Jafeluv (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be made into a disambiguation page, as two targets have been suggested. For the types of radiation that don't have specific articles related to health, the disambiguation entries can just link to the type of radiation. As radiation is an article, radiation and health could also be made into one eventually. Peter E. James (talk) 18:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, a disambiguation page is a good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current redirect to Radiation and health is appropraite. Radiation is a very generic article and not likely what the user would be looking for. Radiation is already suitably wikilinked from Radiation and health--RadioFan (talk) 13:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Radiologic hazards[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 converted to a disambiguation page and moved to Radiological hazard. Thryduulf (talk) 08:14, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This needless page was created recently by someone who apparently does not understand the difference between ionizing (nuclear) and non-ionizing (EMF) radiation. I've created a stop-gap change to make it redirect to something at least relating to nuclear radiation, but that's not a solution and this page should be deleted. Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no articles that link to this page. Unless someone wants to rename it and then list all of the articles and article sections that this topic could possibly refer to (rather a fool's errand, I think), and thus make it an actual article instead of a redirect that nothing links to, it's easiest to just delete the spurious page. Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Laurence Belcher[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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable child actor. Redirect links people to a single instance of the actor's work, though he has been involved in projects since then (most recently X-Men: First Class). No clear justification for highlighting his work on one program over others. Propose page deletion until he meets criteria for BLP entry of his own. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 22:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Charlie Green (ventriloquist)[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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:22, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently redirects to a disambiguation page. No other suitable retarget. Tassedethe (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stubbify if they're notable enough for an article (I've not checked), otherwise delete. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No content exists, or has ever existed, as far as I can see. Tassedethe (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But this does not mean content could not or should not exist. "Stubbify" in the context of redirects usually means "write a stub" rather than reduce an article to stub length, sorry for any confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. If such a person exists they're not showing up in Gsearchs. Except for Charlie Green, and I think we can discount that one. :) Tassedethe (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Team X (X-Men (TV series))[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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - these were up until a few days ago standalone articles on non-notable iterations of various Marvel Comics mutant teams. I PRODed them along with several others, which have now been deleted. An editor redirected these three, creating double redirects that were fixed by a bot. I don't believe these are viable search terms because of the non-standard double parentheticals. It's extremely unlikely that someone looking for these specific iterations are going to type them and typing the team names will lead to the main team articles, which contain links to the X-Men TV series. No information was merged from any of these to the targets so there is no need to preserve any edit histories. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no articles use them and they are unlikely to be search terms.--Crazy runner (talk) 17:55, 7 June 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_May_30&oldid=616123133"