Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 7, 2011

Red Aloe (Rumor)[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 retargetted to Red aloe vera#Rumors per consensus below. NAC Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first ever RfD, so forgive me if I'm doing something wrong or am just entirely mistaken, but this seems like a bad redirect. There no reason anyone would search for this wording without hitting the real article first, and it could just end up being more confusing to them IMO. Nolelover Talk·Contribs 14:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and refine target to Red aloe vera#Rumors which at best could be helpful and at worst harmless. Mind you, that section is entirely unsourced so if it goes then this redirect should then go as well! Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as retargetted as per Bridgeplayer above - Looks like this redirect is basically detritus from a very recent page move with zero incoming links. All of the traffic to this list is probably really traffic to the now moved article. As a very unlikely search term, I would normally give this a delete. That said, given that there is actually a section on the page called "Rumors", and since the harm is low, I won't argue against keeping it around. —mako๛ 23:18, 8 October 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.

List of plants used as medicine[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. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues with this: Firstly, there are herbs used in mainstream medicine in some way, such as the herbal sources for taxol, tamiflu, and so on. This is a valid subject for an article. Secondly, there are many other herbal traditions besides western herbalism, such as List of Kampo herbs, or the native American tradition at Medicinal plants of the American West, as well as many others. There's little reason to treat the redirected link as a central location. Thirdly, the term is non-neutral, implying they work as an effective medicine (the article as it stands is based solely on claims to treat), at the same time as being a complete neologism. Deletion would be the best choice, after updating links (there are not a huge number). 86.176.222.245 (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a well used redirect (nearly 20,000 hits) and the target provides useful information. I understand the nominator's concerns but the policy situation is well described at WP:RNEUTRAL. It is the job of the target article to resolve any non-neutral implications. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - note that this name is the original name of the page, and, as stated, many of the plants in the list are actually used in medicine. There has been no expressed desire to have a separate list of plants that are used only in contemporary medicine, and the existing list does the best job we've currently got of covering the topic. Waitak (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I can understand the urge to keep "medicine" a pure term so as not to imply the efficacy of the listed plants, I think the terms is, when searched for, ambiguous enough to keep the current relationship. Mangoe (talk) 21:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Such a commonly used redirect seems undeletable as long as we have a decent place to point it to -- even if the target is not a perfect. I think that describes the current situation. And as others have pointed out, redirect titles need not always be neutral. —mako๛ 23:22, 8 October 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_October_7&oldid=1145831191"