Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 15[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 15, 2011

The REAL reason George W. Bush fought the War on Iraq[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 --Taelus (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Besides, the Iraq Resolution wasn't the reason Bush went to war, it was a congressional resolution authorizing the war; they're not the same thing. Difluoroethene (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - this was originally targetted at Petroleum to make a point. However, at the revised target, it is inaccurate and confusing, as explained by the nominator. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree with Bridgeplayer. I was the one who changed it to Iraq Resolution. No, that wasn't the "reason" but it explains the reasons. That seemed the simplest target to redirect it, and I didn't think deleting it would be worth the hassle. -- Randy2063 (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I appreciated the laugh at this wonderfully encyclopedic solution to what seems to basically be vandalism but I tend to agree that it's a very unlikely search time and is really just a side effect of somebody trying to push their POV onto the encyclopedia. We can live without this one. —mako๛ 14:52, 16 September 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.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill 2011[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 --Taelus (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bill became an Act today ISTB351 (talk) 18:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep just because a redirect is incorrect or out of date does not mean it is not a valid redirect - redirects can take readers from inaccurate titles to correct ones. It's still a legitimate search term. Hut 8.5 21:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - valid and used search term. Readers may well not be clear on the distinction between Bills and Acts and it is the job of the article to set the record straight. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely a valid search term. Also, in a sense the article covers it as a Bill (in its discussion of debates) and as an Act (in its agreed provisions). Moswento (talk | contribs) 13:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - The fact that the bill became an act -- as bills tend to do -- is why this should be a redirect and not the primary title for the article. It's no reason to get rid of it. The fact that it was an bill and was frequently referred to as such is a strong reason to keep it. —mako๛ 14:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Besides what's said above, wasn't this formerly the official name? We often have redirects from old names to the current names. Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 17 September 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.

North Iran[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 no consensus. That said, none of the commentors wanted the redirect to remain targeted as it currently is. So I will retarget as suggested. If the people who wanted deletion disagree with this, they are welcome to open a new RFD about the retargeted redirect. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:01, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Redirect should be deleted because it was initially redirected to Azerbaijan in potentially nationalist attempt to link a sovereign Republic of Azerbaijan to being a part of Iran. Therefore, I filed a Request for Deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Iran, where an editor replaced the wikilink from Azerbaijan to Azerbaijan (Iran) which refers to northwestern province of Iran. Although this somewhat solves the problem, I still do not see a use for this term since it is not used by any publishers, authors, news agencies and academia, and because North or South usually refer to existing entities like North Korea, etc. Tuscumbia (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I came across a few instances of the phrase 'North Iran' (e.g.), but they did not refer specifically to this region. This would therefore be a misleading redirect. Moswento (talk | contribs) 13:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Neutral - Provinces of Iran might be a better target for this redirect. Geography of Iran might be an OK as well. Honestly though, I'm not super happy with either option. There is some traffic to this redirect so I'm not completely comfortable with just deleting if it if we can come up with a better place to send people. That said, the traffic is low enough, and finding a good place to land seems difficult, so I wouldn't try to stand in the way of deletion either. —mako๛ 15:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Provinces of Iran. However, there are also five other provinces that form the northern border of Iran, though they finish somewhat further south, all of which could be described as being part of 'North Iran'. As Benjamin Mako Hill correctly suggested there is no good target. Having said that, the suggested retarget would enable the reader to find useful information on their search and just about works. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with that. —mako๛ 19:39, 20 September 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.

Gibb, Sir H(amilton) A(lexander) R(osskeen)[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Highly improbable search term, no-one's ever going to type all three names in parentheses into the search box. Hut 8.5 14:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as harmless. Agree highly improbable, and very weak keep, if it makes it harder to search for other things then should go delete, but I think harmless for now. Also I have edited the article a bit having seen it here, to get rid of unnecessary pipes etc, but that should not affect the decision here at RfD I hope. Si Trew (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, talk about highly improbable. There's no useful page history here. Nyttend (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 08:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - This gets quite close to actually zero traffic and seems improbable as a search term. Cheap as redirects are, the potential benefits of this one seems pretty unlikely to reach even that low bar. —mako๛ 15:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that what traffic this redirect does get is from bots. Hut 8.5 15:37, 16 September 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.

Paul Boulton Bolton[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 the redirect will be kept, see rational below. NAC Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as it is a nonsensical title Petebutt (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. This is a bit of a mess I agree (not the article itself but the redirects). I think it may have come about because it used to be impossible to put ampersands in titles, but that seems acceptable now (a change in the WikiMedia engine). So perhaps the excessive redirects are redundant now but weren't before? Si Trew (talk) 08:25, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 08:42, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and refine target to Boulton & Paul Bolton. Unlikely admittedly but it is harmless and if the article creator could get muddled so could someone else! Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hasn't this been refined already? Both Boulton & Paul Bolton and Boulton Paul Bolton seem to point to the same place. Am I missing something here? —mako๛ 15:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul Boulton Bolton redirects to Boulton Paul Bolton. I am suggesting that it targets Boulton & Paul Bolton directly. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All the boultons and boltons confused me as to what should actually be going on with this article and its title. It doesn't seems unreasonable that somebody else trying to search for this topic might be confused too and helped out by this redirect. Seems useful enough to for pay for the cost of a redirect. —mako๛ 15:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed. There is consensus to keep the redirect, and change the target to Boulton & Paul Bolton. The mainstream argument is that, while the redirect won't be used often, redirects are cheap and there is no reason to not have it. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:50, 12 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.

Church of the Tree of Life[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 No Consensus. TexasAndroid (talk) 13:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No information about this organization on Tree of life article Passargea (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - there are many churches with 'Tree of Life' in the title but none are mentioned in this article. This redirects gets a decent number of hits and searchers are likely to be disappointed. When we have nothing to say on a subject then a redirect is a real bad idea because it misleads and confuses readers. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think I would be disappointed if I were redirected to this article. The articles details a number of churches that use the tree of life and, indeed, it seems to be acting as a type of disambiguation page. I'm not OK with deleting redirects with dozens of hits a day unless there really is no place we can send them that is likely to give them an answer or point, point them in the redirection, or at least help them with this church. This seems like the best place we can send them and hardly seems bad. —mako๛ 15:11, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirect is used, and it points to some good information. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:50, 13 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.

The Big Bang Theory Season 5[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 --Taelus (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; there is already a correct name for the article. Carl Francis (talk) 03:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - this is a well-used redirect and a plausible search term. I see no policy-based reason to delete. It is also worth mentioning that this is a former article and there is useful history. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a plausible search term and useful redirect. Moswento (talk | contribs) 14:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Nom is correct. There already is a correct name for the article. That's why this redirect is a redirect and not the title of the article. The redirect is well used, a likely search term, and unlikely to confuse or harm. —mako๛ 15:13, 16 September 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_September_15&oldid=1136083432"