Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 16

< November 15

November 17 >

November 16

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 16, 2012

Pro-Islamic

Relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 4#Pro-Islamic

The Modern Reader's Japanese-English Character Dictionary

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 moot, as the redirect has been converted to an article and so out of RfD's scope. Anyone is of course free to take this to AfD if they so desire. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

• The Modern Reader's Japanese-English Character Dictionary → The New Nelson Japanese-English Character Dictionary (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Deletion – The lemma of the redirect is a previous edition of the dictionary described in the target article. It is a distinctly different book which is still in print as well; the two should not be confused. DeMonsoon (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. We have an article on the target; we don't have one on the redirect. A user searching for the redirect would be benefited by information presented at the destination. In fact, we should put the title of the redirect in boldface in the destination article. (Note: Currently, the destination article has a link to the redirect. This is a self-redirect, so I'm going to assume removing it is non-controversial, and I'm gonna go ahead and remove it right now.) — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 05:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
• I created a new stub article for The Modern Reader's Japanese-English Character Dictionary in place of the redirect and hope that this is a useful change. The redirect that I proposed for deletion thus does not exist any more. --DeMonsoon (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

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.