Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 4

May 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 4, 2012

dead end[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. Any suggestions to move any page to a new target is beyond the scope of RFD, and discussion of such suggestions should continue onto the appropriate article talk pages. — ξ ^xplicit 22:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

dead end → Dead End (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Retarget to cul-de-sac. The primary meaning of a "dead end" is a road that has no outlet. Our article on that topic is cul-de-sac, but it could just as easily be at dead end. Dead End is a disambiguation page focusing on creative works with the title "Dead End". Powers ^T 15:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is no clear and convincing evidence that readers entering "dead end" in the search box are looking for cul-de-sac. Due to the inherent ambiguity of the term itself, redirecting to the disambiguation page is a better option. Also see discussion at Talk:Dead End#Requested move which touches on this redirect. older ≠ wiser 22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, all the current inbound links to dead end refer either to the road or to the generic concept of a strategy that is blocked so we do have a little idea of how readers are using the term. That said, Dead End (the disambiguation page) includes cul-de-sac as the very first entry on the page. That seems pretty reasonable to me for an ambiguous term.
Really, though, this is the wrong forum. This debate should be carried out at Talk:Dead End where editors can also benefit from the opinions offered in the recent Move debate. RfD is unnecessary. Rossami (talk) 23:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, but this is exactly what RFD is for, isn't it? I did leave a notice at Talk:Dead End. Powers ^T 00:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rossami, yes we have a some idea. Cul-de-sac is certainly one of the most likely targets, but I suspect the metaphoric sense is nearly as likely, which is why redirecting to the disambiguation page is reasonable. older ≠ wiser 02:14, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - But the disambiguation page doesn't include the metaphorical sense (nor should it). Powers ^T 01:26, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - It includes a link to wiktionary. older ≠ wiser 12:35, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Question why shouldn't the disambiguation page include a link to cul-de-sac? Cul-de-sac is an article that could be at the title "Dead end" and it's very likely that users looking for that article will look under the term "dead end" - indeed if it were titled "Dead end (road)" there would be no argument against its inclusion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - No one has suggested that the disambiguation for dead end should not contain an entry for cul-de-sac. The disagreement is whether dead end (lower case) should redirect to cul-de-sac instead of to the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 19:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've just created Dead end (road) and Dead end road as redirects to Cul-de-sac, Dead end street already redirects there. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to cul-de-sac, but at the same time, keep in mind that not all road ends are cul-de-sacs - there are also hammerheads and plain old road ends without turnarounds. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The article cul-de-sac gives me the impression that only in the U.S. is that a common distinction; in other countries, the term is applied regardless of whether there is a turnaround or not. Powers ^T 00:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is now - Dead End is already a disambiguation page, as there are a lot of things named or called "dead end". Makes the most sense for the lowercase version to redirect to the same disambig page. --V2Blast (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing on the disambiguation page (except cul-de-sac) is called "dead end"; they are all called "Dead End". Powers ^T 00:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move cul-de-sac to dead end. As the OP said "it could just as easily be at dead end" - more specifically, most people in the US never say and most do not understand "cul-de-sac". But the article has many more problems besides violating WP:CRITERIA, WP:COMMONNAME, and the principle of least astonishment. It also violates WP:DICTIONARY with its ridiculously long list of information about the term in other languages and WP:OR with its nonsense about etymology, as a short look in some English dictionaries at www.onelook.com and in French dictionaries shows. --Espoo (talk) 21:03, 13 June 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.

Charity International[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 to delete. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charity International → Global Happiness Organization (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Charity International sold its naming rights to another organization when it changed its name to Global Happiness Organization--including its urls. Therefore having "Charity International" redirect to Global Happiness Organization will create undue confusion for people looking for information about Global Happiness Organization as there is an additional organization functioning under that name now with the exact same urls. That organization is not notable enough for a Wikipedia page of its own though, so replacing the redirect with a new article isn't an option.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC) Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am proposing the redirect page for deletion.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for several reasons:
- The target is about the organisation formerly called "Charity International" and so this is a very likely search term.
- The article was at the title from 2009 until about 30 minutes before this nomination so the redirect is an important part of the attribution history that we need to maintain per our license
- There will be external links to the old title for probably many years to come (indeed it's usually a few months before all the actively maintained mirrors catch up, and much longer for lesser- and unmaintained mirrors).
- If there is a potential confusion with another organisation using either name then this should be noted in the article, where people following the redirect will find it and be educated. If the potential confusion isn't significant enough for mention there then it's absolutely not significant enough to warrant deleting redirects.
- Maintaining the redirect discourages the creation of an article about a non-notable organisation. Thryduulf (talk) 18:05, 6 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.

New Jersey County College[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 speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G7 by user:Malik Shabazz. Thryduulf (talk) 18:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey County College → List of New Jersey County Colleges (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

"The redirect might cause confusion" (reason 2 above): the name looks as if it would be the name of a specific college. The redirect appears to have been created for use by the Gloucester County College article, and is not used by any other. In copy editing the article I am linking to the list by piping expressions like "County College in New Jersey", as less confusing. --Stfg (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably have said specifically that I'm proposing it for deletion. --Stfg (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to deleting it (I'm the original creator); I hadn't thought of the confusion issue when I created it. Allens (talk | contribs) 12:03, 4 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.