Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 17, 2012

*Graham Miller (sports presenter/relief newsreader, late 80s - 1992)[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. Those recommending keep have explained why this is none of confusing, harmful, misleading or a misnomer. The history of the title and incoming external links outweigh the implausibility of the title as a search term. There are no remaining arguments for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:MoS as I suppose (I didn't find an appropriate criteria for CSD-tagging, that's why I nominated for discussion). ♪ anonim.one ♪ 19:55, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Its an artifact of a pagemove in 2009. While the current title is better, the original title is not overtly confusing or harmful to readers. Redirects are cheap, so cheap that there is no value to deleting it. Tag it with {{unprintworthy}}, though. Rossami (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete search is going to bring up the target page anyway. Redirects are cheep but this one will never get hit and only encourages bad titling.--RadioFan (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No brainer keep, doesn't matter how ridiculous the title is, the article was here for years, so there are probably all kinds of links to it. We don't want to give people "page not found" errors. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 02:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    «the article was here for years» — in the project with 3m articles I have seen a nanostubs, being here for years (now it's deleted at last), so this doesn't surprise me. And have you seen the edit summary: «simplifying, no need to include resume in the title»?; «so there are probably all kinds of links to it» — no; «We don't want to give people "page not found" errors» — who will search this title (exactly with asterisk at the beginning)? Btw, even the «author» !votes for deletion. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 06:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to miss the point. In the years that article was at the title, numerous other websites have likely created links to it. It is impossible for us to know if other websites link to our pages. So, yes, the search will find it, but links from other webpages don't use the search function, they use the actual link which needs to be exact in order to work. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. R3 criteria for speedy deletion. Implausible misnomer. There is nothing common in this title to suggest that readers would search for the subject under an asterisk. Simply keying in the subject's name brings up a link to the desired article. Note also that there are not "all kinds of links" to the redirect, but rather just three, which only exist in relation to this deletion discussion. Redirect that is implausible, uncommon, and not in another language = R3. Just general cleanup. And a primary example of why we have the R3 criteria in the first place. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 11:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my comment above as to why this argument is incorrect. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC) Not to mention that this redirect doesn't meet R3 criteria as it was created in 2009, not "recently" D O N D E groovily Talk to me 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This kind of misunderstanding of R3 is an excellent example of why that criterion needs to be either completely rewritten or just plain deprecated. Regardless of your opinion on whether the redirect should be deleted, this is absolutely not a valid speedy-deletion candidate. Rossami (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; any outside web site still linking via that term NEEDS to be deadlinked. (BTW, R3 absolutely does not apply.) --→gab 24dot grab← 16:15, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. How does it hurt? We should never delete a harmless old redirect. Nyttend (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2012 (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.

Template:Infobox Cosmonaut[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 User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 09:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Old, unused. Magioladitis (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see the problem. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-Not harmful, and something an editor might reasonably expect to exist. I should also note that neither "old" nor "unused" are policy-based reasons for deleting a redirect.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fyre2387, plausible synonym as well.--Lenticel (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep prevents the needless creation of yet another infobox. Both are synonymous. Since this is the english wikipedia, non english use gets the redirect to the english one.--RadioFan (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2012 (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.

Template:Ski jumper infobox[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. Unused, misnamed, redundant. JIMp talk·cont 04:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ιτ doesn't follow the {{Infobox xxxxx}} scheme. All editors should be now familiar with the fact that infoboxes should follow this scheme. Magioladitis (talk) 15:53, 17 April 2012 (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/2012_April_17&oldid=1146694675"