Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 3, 2013.

Mexico 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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Two very similar nominations combined. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination statement for Mexico State.: I requested its deletion per WP:R3. It was declined as the page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tbhotch&oldid=582473865&diff=583183563#Speedy_deletion_declined:_Mexico_State. "was not recently created"--despite the fact I've used R3 for non-"recent" redirects many times. WP:G6 still applying as the page has no value and it is basically impossible someone adds the punctuation to the search, that or we start to create pages like United States., Osama bin Laden., Elizabeth II., RMS Titanic., etc. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original nomination statement for Municipalities of Mexico State.: I requested its deletion per WP:R3. It was declined as the page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tbhotch&oldid=582473865&diff=583183563#Speedy_deletion_declined:_Municipalities_of_Mexico_State. "was not recently created"--despite the fact I've used R3 for non-"recent" redirects many times. WP:G6 still applying as the page has no value and it is basically impossible someone adds the punctuation to the search, that or we start to create pages like United States., Osama bin Laden., Elizabeth II., RMS Titanic., etc. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 04:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. First, obviously not a G6 candidate, the only possible way it could be G6 is if these pages were obviously created in error, and it's not obvious to me. While I agree we shouldn't create redirects like this, that doesn't necessarily mean we should delete them once they're made. This points to exactly where a reader expects it would. Ego White Tray (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both - per WP:RFD#KEEP point 4 - both around 6 years old so deletion could break external links which is why R3 is inappropriate for non-recent redirects. The default for redirects is to keep; deletion is only an option if the redirect is harmful or recently created, neither of which applies here. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term/typo, no argument has been advanced for deletion. WilyD 10:25, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. These are nowhere near recent, and it's never appropriate to use R3 for non-recent pages. But who's going to make links to these pages on other sites, and who's going to get to them directly here? From 1 August to 31 October, the two pages put together got exactly thirty views. This means that they're definitely not getting substantial use, and if you somehow end up at one of these pages only to learn that it doesn't exist, you'll know to remove the period in order to end up where you meant to go. Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 20:06, 3 December 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.

E-410[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 Olympus E-410. WJBscribe (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Originally target was "Olympus E-410," which I'd argue should remain the target as an {{r from EXIF}}. E numbers don't have hyphens in them, nor is "E-410" the primary name used for locust bean gum, so I'd argue that the camera is the more plausible target. The disambiguation page would still exist for cases where no hyphen is used, and there'd be a hatnote on the camera's article. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 19:52, 3 December 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.

Irish Billy Walker[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. --BDD (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence that this boxer was ever known as Irish Billy Walker. The grandfather of Paul Walker apparently had this name but has no article. Davidships (talk) 01:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this redirect should be deleted. It's fairly clear these are two separate people.Wjhonson (talk) 19:47, 8 December 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_December_3&oldid=1138578817"