Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 21, 2012

Hazeltown[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hazeltown seems to be some private translation of an Austrian (German language) placename. It is unknown anywhere else on the web. A request for speedy deletion was declined because of some en.wikipedia red tape (in de.wikipedia, we would have gladly deleted it, but here it's kept without any review, and I am directed to this nightmare of beaurocracy on this page). --FA2010 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article was at this title in 2008, so deleting would cause broken links. However, a new target with hat note would be OK. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dondegroovily. It is not sufficiently bad to overcome the risk and harm of link rot. Rossami (talk) 21:31, 22 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.

Coney Island Elephant[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 history merged by user:Anthony Appleyard. Rossami (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I messed up the policy on this, so I'm just going to bring it here). Schnevets made a page titled Elephantine colossus, then he redirected the older page Coney Island Elephant to it, at first I thought this was vandalism, but when I looked at the page, Schnevets article was much better made. So I'm bringing it here to decide which should be redirected and which should be kept. Bluefist talk 21:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not a problem at all. It was a last-minute decision to revise the article's name, but later I realized I should have looked up the proper protocol for renaming articles and setting up redirections. This was actually my first major contribution. I originally wrote the article on the Coney Island Elephant page, but realized it was more frequently referred to as the Elephantine Colossus during its lifespan. Here are some external links to a flyer and token; the book Coney Island: The People's Playground also refers to it as the Elephantine Colossus. A more wiki-experienced friend was going to attend to the warnings later on (and show me what to do). Once again, sorry for raising the red flags! Schnevets (talk) 23:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Histmerge the old article into the new one. No significant edit history overlaps the two, and the previous article should be accessible from the new one. 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:56, 23 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.

MSR (band)[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 speedy delete. This should have been tagged {{db-author}}. —C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accidently moved the user page article to this link. Since the article is disputed over sources, it is better that it remains on the user page while this redirect should be deleted. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 18:34, 21 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.

Italo Calvino/Italian Folktales[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable search term bobrayner (talk) 15:17, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Refers to two terms, Italo Calvino and Italian Folktales. Perhaps it were phrased as "Italo Calvino's Italian Folktales," but I doubt it's necessary to establish that. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article was at that title for eight years, so we don't want to kill external links to it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 19:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an artifact of a pagemove from before the change in title conventions that deprecated sub-pages. Once upon a time, this was the "right" way to say 'Italo Calvino's Italian Folktales'. It also predates the change to the software that records pagemoves in the moved pagehistory. Rossami (talk) 21:40, 22 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.

U.S. Route 40 (California-Nevada)[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. Ruslik_Zero 19:02, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a plausible search term; no incoming links except user page of editor who created the redirect. Minimal page history. LJ ↗ 09:49, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—redirects might be cheap, but this one is worthless in a scheme that would have separate ones for each state through which US 40 passes or passed. The search term just isn't plausible on that basis, and this editor has created dozens of questionable redirects based on "completing" his book, User:Morriswa/Books/United States Highways‎ which he is now pruning back to resolve article duplication issues in. Imzadi 1979 → 10:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I realize that U.S. Route 40 (California) and U.S. Route 40 (Nevada) exist, but what if a user wants to look at all of the states (only 2, I know) that US 40 used to pass through? Us experienced (or semi-experienced editors, in my case) already know that we can go to "U.S. Route 40" and look at the "History" section. What about the newbies? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 11:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Anybody searching for what states US 40 used to pass through are likely not going to know what those states are. They would start with the US 40 main article and go from there. Such a search could also be done more effectively with existing redirects in categories. No newbie reader/editor is going to be typing U.S. Route 40 (California-Nevada) to achieve the specific result you describe. -- LJ ↗ 19:30, 21 April 2012 (UTC)-- LJ ↗ 19:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does "Such a search could also be done more effectively with existing redirects in categories" mean? Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -Unlikely search term. Dough4872 18:53, 21 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.

iGod[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) 07:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect. The word "iGOD" is not an established term among the dedicated Apple community. iGod is actually a popular web application that uses an AI algorithm to interact with users. Autocorrectz (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete One of the references at Steve Jobs refers to him as "iGod" in its title, but with the phrase otherwise unused in our article, and it not being a particularly well established nickname anyway, I'll say delete unless there were more merit at Steve Jobs. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Oh (Avoiding use of deity's name) no. I know there are some comedic redirects floating around, but this one? Absolutely not. Nate • (chatter) 08:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 07:07, 30 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.

Oral sex, sexual intercourse, anal etc[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) 07:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes_of_redirects. No one will search "oral sex, sexual intercourse etc" for the topic sexual intercourse. And even if one searches so, why not he try alternate sequence such as "sexual intercourse, oral sex etc." or "anal sex oral sex etc"? Are we going to create all these redirects? BTW, the redirect was created by a vandal User talk:Chevap. SupernovaExplosion Talk 04:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 15:32, 21 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.

Request for undeletion[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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-namespace redirect in main space. Does not conform to the purpose of the main space. I propose deletion. 70.244.32.155 (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This one of the limited occasions where cross-namespace redirects from article to project space are a good thing. Specifically, if Wikipedia is to maintain it's culture of openness and make it as easy as possible for new contributors to get involved we need to make it as easy as possible to find the absolutely key deletion pages. While anyone looking for this should be given a link to the target, we cannot know that they will be. Also, we don't know that they will follow a link, particularly if the instructions they are getting are external and just tell them to go to Requests for undeletion, if they don't know about namespaces yet (and we generally go out of our way (for good reasons) to hide them from causal readers) they'll just put that phrase in the search box. If you look at the history of this redirect you'll see that it's initial creation was by someone wanting to request the undeletion of a particular article, with the redirect in place they'd have been taken directly to the right place rather than relying on a new page patroller to spot it and correct them. See also Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 August 11#Articles for deletion where the similar "Articles for deletion" redirect was unanimously kept. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. The prohibition against cross-namespace redirects is a weak argument for deletion in all cases and is especially weak for redirects like this which help new users to find critical policy pages. Rossami (talk) 22:13, 23 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_21&oldid=1138578029"