Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 20[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 20, 2013

Elmo420v[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 delete per criterion R3 - recently created implausible redirects. Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for deletion. User redirected his username to an article. No one is going to search info on Elmo with the term "Elmo420v". Ribbon Salminen (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2013 (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.

Children's Hospital (UK TV series)[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 retarget to Children's Hospital#Media. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two series with this name Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 16:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Children's Hospital (ITV series) or Children's Hospital#Media. This vote depends on the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC:
  1. If the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is Children's Hospital (BBC TV series), Keep.
  2. If the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is Children's Hospital (ITV series), Retarget to Children's Hospital (ITV series).
  3. If there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Retarget to Children's Hospital#Media (disambiguation page.)
So, essentially, I oppose deletion. Steel1943 (talk) 16:41, 20 April 2013 (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.

John Peter May[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. Thryduulf (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

J. Peter May's first name is Jon, not John Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 16:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. {{R from alternative spelling}} and/or {{R from misspelling}}. Steel1943 (talk) 16:34, 20 April 2013 (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.

Minette Marrin[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--Salix (talk): 20:00, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked by Philip Cross (talk · contribs): "Marrin is not mentioned in "The Sunday Times" article itself". Very true; this should be an uncontroversial discussion. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't recall creating this redirect, but obviously did. Although her name doesn't appear in our Sunday Times article, she has been a regular contributor to it (see here). I won't lose any seep though if you want to delete it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If she's notable enough for an article then this should be deleted per WP:REDLINK, if she isn't then it ought to redirect somewhere as it's a well viewed redirect with incomming links. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that she is notable enough for an article, the notability of journalists is always difficult for me since their names occur frequently, but the substance is mostly them writing about something. I really need to see awards or equivalent for journalistic notability. If the Sunday Times article cannot support her mention, then I'd delete the redirect. The three incoming article links are two of her writing about something, and the third is her appearance on Question Time. I don't see her redirect as well-viewed. The Wikipedia article traffic statistics doesn't seem to show any, does it work only with articles and not with redirects? --Bejnar (talk) 22:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at the "stats" link in the header of this discussion you'll see that not only does it work with redirects, this redirect has been viewed 79, 66 and 86 times in March, February and January respectively. Those are high figures for a redirect (background noise of bots, etc is 2-3 hits/month), showing that it is very well visited. Thryduulf (talk) 08:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, it would be unusual for QT to invite a relatively unknown journalist onto its panel. Vietually all of the listed guests have bluelinks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2013 (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.

Catherine Sutherland[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 per Thryduulf --Salix (talk): 19:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was an article at one stage, but it was redirected by 74.88.115.46 (talk · contribs) to Katherine Hillard as it is "her only notable role. All other roles were either short, minor roles, thus failing WP:NACTOR and WP:ANYBIO". The page was subsequently blanked by 50.98.155.46 (talk · contribs): "While her major role might have been in Power Rangers, it is both odd and confusing to redirect any mention of her, to her character. Just take her out altogether. Otherwise, you're just fostering confusion." Personally, I don't have a clue, so I turn it over to the community for discussion. It may be appropriate to restore the article. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:48, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If her only notable role is the fictional character then redirecting there is entirely the correct thing to do, ideally adding a sentence or two about her to that article if something can be said (why was she cast, that sort of thing). If she is notable then the article should be restored, but I've not looked if she is. I see no reason to delete in either scenario though. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other websites are dependent on Wikipedia: 731 people liked our redirect on Facebook, when the actress has her own official page (3K likes) as well. Is there really harm in keeping this up? -- Zanimum (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Nominations for WikiMedals[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 / Withdrawn by nominator. After reading some of the comments by Thryduulf, this redirect currently redirects to the proper target, and should not be deleted or retargeted. (Non-admin closure/withdrawn by nominator) Steel1943 (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirects are cheap, but this one links to an archive about a proposal for a policy on an archived proposal page. Seems a bit unnecessary. Steel1943 (talk) 07:33, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Deletion wouldn't bring any benefits at all and would create unnecessary redlinks. It got 10 views last month, which is higher than background noise so it seems some people still find it useful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm curious; would you have any ideas for "Retarget" instead, such as Wikipedia:Barnstars? I mean, redirects are usually only useful ... if they redirect to the proper page. Steel1943 (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it should be retargetted, as that would break the incoming links. From the context of those links, the current target would appear to be the "proper" page. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, since it seems to currently redirect to what is intentionally the "proper" page. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. --evrik (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I might have been the nominator of this RfD, but I move to Withdraw this proposal, and close this as Keep. Steel1943 (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:SEMI-PRO[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 retarget to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection. JohnCD (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Wikipedia:Protection policy#Semi-protection. This shortcut currently redirects towards what seems like an abandoned discussion (since either 2011 or 2012). This shortcut currently has no incoming links, other than the one in the {{essay-project-note}} template on its current target article. Steel1943 (talk) 07:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget I was a primary editor in the discussion, I have no objection.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:54, 20 April 2013 (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.

Washington-Baltimore-Arlington, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA Combined Statistical Area[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. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading—No sourcing (or mention) exists in target article to indicate that any part of Pennsylvania is included in the Balt/Wash CSA GotR Talk 05:07, 20 April 2013 (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/2013_April_20&oldid=1138578612"