Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 1[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 1, 2012

Lois and Clark[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 WP:TWODABS applies here, there are clear primary topics of each and hatnotes will suffice--Salix (talk): 18:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These two redirects are a little too confusing. I may propose a disambiguation page. This may look like a subject to {{db-disambig}}, but I don't know to what "Lois and Clark" must be referred other than the 1993 TV series, and "Clark and Lois"... I don't know either. However, I have checked stats.grok.se of Clark and Lois and of Lois and Clark. "Lois and Clark" is more popular phrase to refer. If disambigation is voted, then I can add "See also" section. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as is This conversation is based on George's request to rename at Talk:Relationship_of_Clark_Kent_and_Lois_Lane#Move.3F, although having multiple conversations about the same topic in different places seems to be muddying the waters a bit. Perhaps the fault is mine, but I fail to see the confusion with the way the redirect (as well as the current) articles are currently done. In general, "Lois and Clark" (putting her name first) appears to only be in reference to the TV show, because of its name, whereas when referring to the two characters, Clark Kent's name would normally come first in natural speech. Again, not sure where the confusion is coming from. While surely in good faith, I think the nom is overestimating the amount of confusion that the current redirects are causing. Without clear justification, or a clear sign of a problem we are fixing, I would always default to keep as is. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:38, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you wanted to make a disambig page, Clark Kent and Lois Lane makes more sense to me, and is currently unused anyway. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well... I don't know how to explain this: these two redirects are a little confusing to me because even referring "Clark and Lois" may refer to "Lois & Clark" TV show and, as well, love affair of Lois and Clark. I don't know what readers want. However, L&C makes the article of the TV show popular, and C&L makes the article of the relationship popular, according to statistics. Nevertheless, I could not tell what readers want a show or relationship as referred. For instance, which topic do you intend to know when you type either "Lois and Clark" or "Clark and Lois"? --George Ho (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a discussion already ongoing at Talk:Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane. I don't think an rfd was/is necessary at this point. But regardless, Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane is not a merged page of Clark Kent and Lois Lane, but rather merely about their relationship. The goal is obviously clarity in naming. And I would presume that most who get to the page do so by linking from another associated article. All that aside, if the Lois and Clark, and Clark and Lois redirects are really of such concern, then I would presume hatnotes would be the more appropriate action per WP:DAB. (Noting that they are already in place : ) - jc37 10:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are already "hatnotes" in targeted articles. Well, have I well convinced you that I propose a disambiguation page? If not, then how can I convince you that I intended to turn each redirect into one disambiguation page? --George Ho (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No. My point was that current guidelines are that a dab page isn't to be created for 2 pages/redirects. Instead we are to use hatnotes. And since they are already in place (as I also already noted), that pretty much makes the rest of this moot. - jc37 11:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:TWODABS, a disambiguation page may not be necessary if there are only two topics — and only one is primary. However, possibly, these two topics, TV series and a "Relationship of...", may be themselves primary, unless otherwise. It doesn't matter what "Lois and Clark" or "Clark and Lois" currently refer. The matter is: per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which topic you intend to research if you type "Lois and Clark," "Lois and Superman," "Superman and Lois," or anything else related. On the other hand, if you want to research either a relationship of the pair or the TV show, what term do you type and enter and why?
How is this RFD not different from the Move request? This RFD discusses these redirects; the other discusses renaming an article. I created this RFD because I would presumes that opposing arguments are stronger and may result no consensus to move in the future. --George Ho (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them as they are. I don't see as how this would be confusing to anyone. It helps them find their way to the pages they are most certainly looking for when they type those things in. Dream Focus 13:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In other words, leave "Clark and Lois" as redirect to "Relationship of..." and "Lois and Clark" as TV series? If that is the case, then no objections to the "disambiguation page" as long as two redirects are kept? --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes, I used "Lois and Clark" as intent to search the relationship rather than a TV series; is there anything wrong with that? --George Ho (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think you mean well George, but it seems you are the only one confused by the current configuration of the articles. Per the TWODABS above, a disambig page is probably not needed either. A DAB page doesn't bug me personally, but I fail to see the necessity of any of the changes you are proposing, and some of them will make it more confusing for the rest of the users, instead of easier. We have two conversations going on with changes you want to make to a few articles that relate to this topic but you are the only one who sees the problem with the status quo, in either discussion. At some point you might have to ask yourself "is it only me that is confused?" Dennis Brown (talk) 21:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If DAB page won't work, then I have recently requested redirects in WP:AFC/R. --George Ho (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is the 3rd method you currently have going at the same time, the vote on the talk page, this discussion, and now a new discussion as you have linked. Normally, you should try one at a time, lest someone mistake your intentions as being disruptive. At the very least, it isn't conducive to gaining consensus, and borders on bludgeoning the process. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the proposed redirects have been redirected to Relationship of Clark Kent and Lois Lane, yet I proposed either of two targets there. I didn't mean to "bludgeon," did I? I mean, can you explain to me how and why three I proposed are the same? I just created discussions because... I assumed that the relationship is more popular than the show itself outside Internet, unless it is the other way around. That's why I'm "confused". --George Ho (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went and did a little research and think I have a better idea of your perspective on issues in general, which are at times, unique. I don't think you were trying to do anything wrong, but you should be aware that when you start a discussion about a topic, such as renaming an article (which was a perfectly valid discussion to start), then after a few days when everyone disagrees but the discussion isn't over, you go to another venue on Wikipedia on a topic that is very, very similar, and get the same result, and then go to a 3rd venue, well.... even when you don't mean it to, it may look like you are shopping for a venue that agrees with you, rather than looking for consensus. I truly believe you did this in good faith, but it is still not the proper way to do it. If you are proposing changes to an article (or new ones with almost the same subject matter), you really should finish what you start before moving on. You did post notice on each forum about what else you were doing, but it scatters the conversation and makes it difficult to judge consensus, and again, it LOOKS like you are shaking a Magic 8 Ball until it gives you the answer you want. Even with the best of intentions, a person's actions can sometimes be more disruptive than beneficial. This is one of those times. If you want to make changes to a "topic area", I would highly suggest keeping it at the talk page until the conversation is fully over. THEN, if you disagree with the consensus, by all means, bump it up to the next level if you feel the group is wrong. This way we can see what the true consensus is, and you don't run the risk of people questioning your good faith attempts. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:33, 3 February 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.

Georgia (U.S. state[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. As this discussion showed, the redirect is a plausible typo and it is not offensive, confusing etc. It (at least to a certain extant) is useful and has existed for a long time. Taking all this into account (and of course that redirects are cheap), I conclude that there is no reason either in the written policy or RFD case law to delete it. Ruslik_Zero 16:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Listing per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 25. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This redirect basically saves a click on a common typo, hitting enter before entering the last character of Georgia (U.S. state). Yes, it would pop up in the search results page. But when you hit enter, you expect to go to the page you thought you were typing in. This redirect accomplishes that, while preventing the momentary "huh" of going to the search page. It's not a big deal, but it does have some function. Meanwhile, what are the reasons to delete it? In terms of actual, concrete consequences I can't think of a one. It isn't confusing. It isn't in the way of anything. Redirects are cheap. If this ends up actually having a provably deleterious effect on anything, anywhere, I'll be stunned. In the absence of that, it's not worth slightly inconveniencing readers. Meelar (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who hits enter before finishing their search term? This seems more than implausible to me. —danhash (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • People who type quickly and hit enter before they're supposed to. I made this very typo when I created the redirect, which is admittedly anecdata, but I don't think it's extremely implausible. Meelar (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: redirects are cheap, 144 views in December is more than background noise. TimBentley (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Views show a sudden spike, possibly from DRV; taking it out we have less than 6 hits a day and usually less than 3. Thoroughly implausible typo for ordinary readers (who mostly don't try to type out the parenthetical dabs). --NYKevin @182, i.e. 03:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where did you get these numbers? Year ago (that is a year before DRV) the stats were higher. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Are you going to have similar redirects for every page with parentheses in its name?? And what about people who type in Georgia (U.S.), Georgia (U.S.A.), Georgia (America), Georgia (US state), Georgia (state) or Georgia U.S. State? They have a more reasonable right to expect a redirect than someone who's made a punctuation error. What would be more useful would be some consistency on what appears when people make such "errors", partly to prevent them starting new Wikipedia pages. Dadge (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to provide a useful function as shown by the hits. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even discounting the DRV spike in usage history, the history shows enough steady usage to mark this as useful. It is not obviously confusing or in the way of any other article. It's been around since 2005 without causing any problems. Finally, I note that none of the "delete" opinions above match any of the criteria at WP:R#DELETE. When there is not a valid reason to delete a redirect, Wikipedia policy is to keep them. Redirect really are that cheap. Rossami (talk) 03:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • You missed reason number 8. --NYKevin @869, i.e. 19:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nope, it's not a synonym (novel or otherwise), it's a typo. As a typo, it is neither implausible nor especially recent. 8 does not apply. Rossami (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep gets 50-100 views a month which means people are actually using it. The title is therefore not sufficiently obscure to warrant deletion. Redirects are cheap, this one isn't doing any harm. Hut 8.5 00:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: we have documented plausibility of this pretty ugly typo. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – There are now no articles that point to this page, which is likely the only reason it had any hits at all; I fixed the links to it in all articles that linked to it. There are no article links to it, there shouldn't ever have been links to it, and there should not ever be links to it. It's a totally useless, worthless page and keeping it just sets the precedent for countless other useless, worthless pages. —danhash (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Without discussing the merits of this particular redirect again, from a process point of view that statement is incorrect. Orphaning a redirect is explicitly not a reason to delete it. First, remember that in an ideal world, all redirects would be orphans. Second, the very fact that you had to orphan it is contributing evidence that the mistake was plausible. Not only did the person who first created the redirect find it useful (assuming good faith) but each of the people who used it made the same mistake. Third and perhaps most importantly, orphaning only affects the current links and even then, only the links within Wikipedia. It does nothing for the links that are buried in pagehistory (and which could be restored at any time if a page has to be reset back to fix a particularly bad case of vandalism for example) and it does nothing at all for any external links which point to the Wikipedia page. Just because a redirect is an orphan does not make it useless. Unless a redirect is actively harmful, redirects get kept. Rossami (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not a plausible typo. That somebody created it is also not any indication of its plausibility. Sometimes mistyped links are added to articles by accident, even by experienced users. It is bound to happen on occasion, which is why it is always good to preview before saving. It's very possible that a link was created to the page by accident (one typo by one user does not have any bearing on plausibility) and that another user, instead of just fixing the link, created a redirect. Anybody who typed in "Georgia (U.S. state" would be capable of figuring out their mistake, and in fact would likely be surprised if their typo was automatically corrected. Anybody who knows the inner workings of Wikipedia enough to know to type "state" in parentheses, especially "U.S. state", knows how to fix their error, and anybody who does not know this would not have typed it to begin with. None of the pages I fixed had "particularly bad cases of vandalism", and any reversion to a prior version should be checked anyway. You could try the argument that the redirect shouldn't have been created, but even so is not worthy of deletion, but that just opens up the door for countless useless redirects that will then have a precedent to not be deleted, even though they are useless. What is much more plausible than this typo is that one person with a broken ")" key on his keyboard added the link to a couple of articles and didn't realize his mistake since the redirect had already been created by somebody who should have just fixed the incorrect link pointing to it in the first place. —danhash (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I disagree. The fact that a mistake was made is, by definition, evidence of the plausibilty of the mistake (assuming good faith).
          Your assumption that "anybody" who knows enough to use the US State suffix will also know enough to get the exact grammar right is based upon how you use the encyclopedia. Not everyone navigates through the system the saw way you or I do.
          Lastly, I (and many others) explicitly do make the argument that even when some redirects probably didn't need to have been created, they ought not to be deleted unless they are actively harmful. That is the very essence of Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap and is a long-standing precedent at Wikipedia. Redirects serve many purposes. Just because you find it useless does not make it so for everyone. Rossami (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • "The fact that a mistake was made is...evidence of the plausibility of the mistake": Not necessarily. There are all kinds of mistakes made by people that are not plausible mistakes. Perhaps our definitions of "plausible" differ; to me, "plausible" is similar in definition to likely, reasonable, or justifiable. For a mistake to be a plausible mistake, then, would mean that it is one that more than a few people are likely to make. There have been no substantive arguments to the effect that more than a few people are likely to make the mistake of leaving off the end parenthesis. It is also not an issue of getting the "exact grammar right". Every user of English or indeed of any language where parentheses come in matching pairs (i.e. arguably everybody who uses the English Wikipedia) knows that an opening parenthesis needs a closing parenthesis. If your goal is to avoid unnecessary additional server load by deleting the redirect, your goal would quickest be achieved by not continuing the discussion, since additional discussion takes up more server resources; it also takes up the valuable time of Wikipedia editors, whose time and resources are undoubtedly more important than the servers' (the Wikipedia community is the people). Also keep in mind that, in general, editors don't have to worry about performance. The redirect is useless, not just to me but to the project; it could even be argued that the redirect is less than useless (i.e. harmful) because of the potential that keeping it has to inspire the naive, even if good faith, incremental creation of more useless redirects (which would outweigh WP:CHEAP). —danhash (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • We are indeed working from very different definitions. "Plausible" is a much lower standard than "likely". Something is likely if there is a greater than 50% chance that it is true (and depending on context, maybe much greater than 50%). Saying that something is plausible, on the other hand, only means that the statement can not be immediately and obviously declared as false.
              Something can be plausible and yet remain quite unlikely. A plausible typo is one that a reasonable person could look at and say "Yeah, maybe." A plausible typo is one that a reasonable person would believe was created in good faith. Maybe an error but not a malicious error. An implausible typo, on the other hand, would be more like claiming that <insert your favorite profanity here> was really a typo and should redirect to Barack Obama or GW Bush. Saying that an alleged typo is implausible is saying that you believe the "mistake" is so unlikely that it is more probable that the creator is lying and acted in bad faith.
              I agree that only a few people have made this mistake. I see no evidence of bad faith, however, and the bar for redirects really is that low. Rossami (talk) 23:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is a plausible typo of a disambiguated name, and the evidence of the statistics is that it does fulfil a function for readers. My only concern is that it sets a bit of a precedent for the omit-closing-parenthesis typo. Are we going to support creating a similar redirect for any parenthesised typo? For that reason, make it a weak keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Statistics require interpretation; they mean nothing on their own. The number of hits the redirect has gotten is of negligible importance in this instance. "Keep" arguments should be substantive and not based on statistics alone. —danhash (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I made 4 statements; to which one is your one word, non-specific inquiry directed? —danhash (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • To all of them. The stats show that the redirect is used (as opposed to useful), which is just enough to keep it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why...
          1. do statistics require interpretation? Because they are mere numbers, and numbers mean nothing on their own. Numbers need a context in order to be meaningful.
          2. do statistics mean nothing on their own? Ditto.
          3. are the number of hits the redirect has gotten of negligible importance in this instance? Because, in addition to #1 and #2, there are any number of reasons a redirect could have gotten hits. There are lists of page titles all over the place, many in places that are likely not to be bot/crawler-excluded, meaning that the number of hits is not a reliable or definitive indicator of the number of times a human has visited the redirect. Even if a human has visited the redirect, there are numerous reasons why a person would visit a redirect that have nothing to do with the plausibility of the typo in its title. There are lists on WP specifically of redirects that are typos. People generally make lists for a reason, yes? Perhaps there are editors who want to keep up with such redirects and visit them from time to time for any number of reasons.
          4. should "keep" arguments be substantive and not based on statistics alone? Because, in addition to #1, #2, and #3, arguments based on statistics alone are as meaningless as the statistics are by themselves. And arguments on either side should be substantive, because otherwise they are irrelevant (and, hence, a waste of even more resources!!) —danhash (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:Redirects are cheap is not a reasonable rationale for keeping this redirect: it was speedily deleted, then discussed at DRV, then discussed here, which is more than enough time and resources spent by the server and the community to outweigh that essay's view of the "cheapness" of redirects. Take a look at the deletion review entry for this redirect, particularly the votes to endorse the original deletion: there is not one single substantive reason given to keep the redirect (only a couple votes based on the opinion that it shouldn't have been speedily deleted) among several very good reasons to leave the redirect deleted. Remember that it is the weight of the arguments behind the votes that matter, not simply the number of votes on each side. I have not seen one substantive reason to keep this redirect amid a flurry of substantive reasons to delete it. —danhash (talk) 19:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, and this is why it should stay: keeping it is cheaper then going through all of this again. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You ignored just about everything I said. Your comment also does not make much sense, since if the redirect is deleted as a result of this discussion, there would be no reason to recreate it (since an administrator would have deleted it based on the weight of arguments to delete versus the weight of the arguments to keep). —danhash (talk) 21:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Once the redirect will be deleted, it will not free any space. And if it will get re-created by someone, it will take more. And so on. That's why we don't delete harmless redirects like this one. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Freeing server space was never one of my arguments for deletion. Salting would take care of it being recreated in the future. —danhash (talk) 22:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Contrary to the comment above, I can not find a "flurry of substantive reasons" to delete this particular redirect, either in this discussion or in any of the previous discussions. The closest I see boils down to "it's a bad precedent", an argument that has never worked for redirects. Please recap for us. What exactly is the current deletion rationale? Rossami (talk) 15:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you type in Georgia (country the wikipedia software helpfully says "did you mean Georgia (country)?" I assume the same would happen for Georgia (US state. Coping with this kind of typo is better done by software than by creating many redirects.--Salix (talk): 19:06, 19 February 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.

3_Rascals[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. --Salix (talk): 19:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect has nothing to do with the target article.Hence proposing to delete.--Sandy (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 3 Idiots,its a remake of 3 Idiots which is remade as Nanban.3 Rascals has not been mentioned in movie page,talk page.Additionally Nanban page had never named as 3 Rascals.--Sandy (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My question was whether 3 Rascals is an alternative translation of 3 idiots title? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No its not.--Sandy (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Then just keep. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please tell me,why?As this name has nothing to do with redirect.--Sandy (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was the working title of the film. (See [1] or [2]; but those not needed anyway, as this is redirect, not an article.) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It was the working title of the film, a remake of 3 Idiots, now filmed as Nanban. As such it is possible that readers (the people who the encyclopaedia is for, remember?) might search for this title. Whereupon they would be redirected to Nanban. If there is any point in deleting this redirect, it hasn't been made here. pablo 21:39, 13 February 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.

File:Js-official-logo.png[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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is not in use anywhere and is misleading/inappropriate given that the logo is anything but official. Cybercobra (talk) 12:57, 1 February 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:Ficha de entidad subnacional[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. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Useless, unused redirect Bulwersator (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as dangerously useless. The redirects outside main and Wikipedia namespace frequently end up causing troubles, and now we have a chance to delete one painlessly. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:05, 8 February 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 (such as the template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_1&oldid=1144418214"