Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 March 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 26, 2012

Template:Lina Wertmüller Films[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 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. Typing more adds nothing. Magioladitis (talk) 18:31, 26 March 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:Sergio Leone Films[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 08:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. Typing more adds nothing. Magioladitis (talk) 18:30, 26 March 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.

Woody Island, Sth China Sea[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 08:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible abbreviation, the only use of "Sth China Sea" on the English Wikipedia. – hysteria18 (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not an abbreviation, it was a typo. Content existed at the typo-title for a month before being corrected. We have no way to know if or how many external links exist to that title. The redirect has been sitting without apparent controvery or confusion ever since (June 2006). It should be tagged as {{unprintworthy}} but unharmful redirects like this should be kept because redirects are cheap and link rot is a problem we should avoid whenever possible. Rossami (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete implausible typo. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Stats below usability threshold. --Dmitry (talk•contibs) 06:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. Contra Dmitry, stats showing that a redirect is used (as in this case), however few, are a reason to keep a redirect that is not harmful. The most likely ways a redirect can be harmful are by being misleading (which this clearly isn't), by being in the way of something else (which in this case is extremely unlikely) or (sometimes) by discouraging the creation of an article we want (in this case we don't want an article at this title, as it would duplicate the present target). Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 27 March 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.

Toy industries[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 all. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All: The article "toy industry" has for a long time not been about that generally, but about the Birmingham toy industry; I have accordingly moved it there. I am in the course of trying to remove incoming links to the resultant redirect, by either altering them to links to "toy" or to the new article, but there are a lot in redirects, with no incoming links at all. This seems pointless. Toy industry ought to be a redirect with possibilities, if some one is prepared to write an article on toy production. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all (in fact retarget back to toy industry and label with {{nobots}}): plausible search terms redirecting to a relevant target. I redirected toy industry to Toy#Economics for now. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article now at Birmingham toy industry is correct in noting that historically, "toys" meant more than just children's playthings. See definition 2 at wikt:toy. In that context, the move was incorrect since that historical usage of the phrase was not unique to Birmingham. That said, the current usage of "toy industry" is more in keeping with the content at Toy#Economics or perhaps at Category:Toy companies by country. To fix it now, I think we should 1) move "Birmingham toy industry" back to the original title, 2) mark that content with a Historical header, 3) expand the rest of the article with content from "Toy#Economics" for a start and 4) keep all the redirects since they will all make sense when pointing to an article that talks about both historical and current usages. Rossami (talk) 05:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per being sound redirects now that toy industry has been correctly redirect. Also, spin off an article from the Toy#Economics section, and make a hatnote to Birmingham toy industry. Two separate topics, two separate articles, per WP:DICDEF.A412 (Talk • C) 00:11, 30 March 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.

DVB-M[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 08:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete to avoid confusion. No ETSI standard goes by the name DVB-M; redirect was only used by the agenda for TIA committee TR-47 and this was an error. Dmitry (talk•contibs) 07:17, 26 March 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.

Norm Huner[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 09:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He is not mentioned in the target page at all. (He's a biology prof there.) Seems like there is no context for this redirect. ... discospinster talk 04:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: it was a BLP stub which was overwritten with redirect instead of deletion. It's time to fix this error. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before being turned into a redirect in Feb 2009, this page would have been speedy-deletable under [[WP:CSD#A7|]]. The only hint that he might qualify for a biography was immediately deleted as a confirmed copyright violation. If he is notable, then a redlink is more likely to attract a proper article. If not, then this redirect serves no purpose. Delete. Rossami (talk) 04:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to BLP concern and as vague synonym.--Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 29 March 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.

Woody Allen Barcelona Project[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 09:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vague descriptive redirect. Presumably appropriate before the film was released and before its name was known, but no longer relevant. – hysteria18 (talk) 01:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in a lack of no good reason to delete and above noise level stats. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirect should have been deleted in 2007 because we can't tell the future. It wasn't deleted then because we have relatively poor enforcement of WP:CRYSTAL (and a crystal-ball redirect is at least less bad than a crystal-ball article). Now, in my opinion, we are stuck with it because we don't know what (if any) inbound links exist and it's not obviously harmful. Reluctant keep. Rossami (talk) 04:44, 27 March 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_March_26&oldid=1072176993"