Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 10, 2011

Second Mile Foundation[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 The Second Mile, a newly created stub. jheiv talk contribs 16:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Redirect/Deletion_Reasons Deletion #10, and the entire Neutrality section. jheiv talk contribs 23:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Retarget to Jerry Sandusky (as per Thryduulf) as it doesn't seem to qualify for deletion reason #10. On the other side, the page used to be speedy deleted, so (assuming the good faith of jheiv) there should be a reason for it to be deleted. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As there is an article now, I would indeed prefer this retargeted to The Second Mile. Though I'm not entirely sure about the subject notability, this way the redirect could be further changes in line with the fate of the new article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:48, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jerry Sandusky, although the current target is not ideal this is clearly a very likely and useful search term; and the current target is far from implausible (it was previously speedy deleted under WP:CSD#R3, but it does not meet that criterion). There is a little bit of information, although not much, about the foundation at the main Jerry Sandusky article. Whether anything more can be written I don't know, as it will take more time than I currently have to filter out the noise of mentions related to the sex abuse story. The main point is that, as far as I can gather (I didn't know the scandal existed until seeing this RfD, so I might be wrong) is that nothing has been proven regarding the Foundation's knowledge or otherwise of Mr Sandusky's actions, so retargeting to the founder's article is more neutral than targetting the scandal article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Retarget to The Second Mile, the stub about the foundation, per Bagumba below. It will then become a standard redirect from an alternative name. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the original creator, my intent was to create a search term. I felt the most likely page to help a search was probably the current page, although I can see why it could be retargeted. I'm ok with either. Ronnotel (talk) 12:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Jerry Sandusky seems fine to me. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of 19:14, November 11, 2011‎ the article is already retargeted to Jerry Sandusky with the edit summary "Suggest redirecting it to Jerry Sandusky". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Escocia, Inglaterra and Malvinas[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 Malvinas Delete others. DrKiernan (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't call the Falklands "Malvinas" in English speaking countries. To the extremely dubious extent that the term has any legitimacy at all, it's only to Spanish speakers.

Interestingly I was going to illustrate how ridiculous it was by contrasting Inglaterra - but it turns out that exists as a redirect as well. So delete that too - this is the English Language wiki! Egg Centric 21:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any foreign language redirect is conceivably useful, but I see a slippery slope... there are thousands of languages in papua new guinea alone. With millions of article on wikipedia, that means billions of redirects that are potentially useful to papuans. Best to keep things in the correct language. Egg Centric 22:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIR Spanish is in TOP-5 of languages. And there was a dispute over Falkland Islands between Spanish-speaking Argentina and England, so these two (Inglaterra and Malvinas) have a bonus of possible additional frequency of use in Spanish-biased English-speaking media. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would actually insist on keeping Malvinas. The other two may be not this useful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Escocia and Inglaterra, Keep Malvinas. We normally only keep non-English nouns when the are the name of the subject in its native language. There is, therefore, no basis for keeping either Escocia and Inglaterra. I see an exception for Malvinas since its usage is explained in the target. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Malvinas, delete the others. WP:REDIR says that redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created. In the case of Malvinas the subject does relate to a culture which speaks that language since supporters of the Argentine position in the Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute may use that term to refer to the islands. Hut 8.5 10:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

File:Zwicky.jpg[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. DrKiernan (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled image, relevant usage seemingly updated, would R3 but not recent. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

File:0Sloan.jpg[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. DrKiernan (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled image, now at Commons , would be R3 but not recent. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:28, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

File:~tj2.JPG[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. DrKiernan (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retitled image, Usage seemingly updated, would have R3'd but this is not a recent re-title. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the image was originally misidentified as Thomas Jefferson but it is actually Tom Paine.Rjensen (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Teetotall[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. DrKiernan (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect based on mis-spelling Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as it should be with misspelling redirects. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since we are here, because this doesn't seem at all implausible. It should be templated 'Template:R from misspelling'. However, I guess it was open to the author to tag it as a G7. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Mohammad-Reza Zahedi[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. DrKiernan (talk) 14:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. The redirect is evidently misleading: while Mohammad Mehdi Zahedi is an Iranian minister since 2005, Mohammad-Reza Zahedi was the Commander of IRGC Ground Force till 2008. -- Prokurator11 (talk) 05:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_10&oldid=1051428096"