Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 26, 2013

Attractive Nuisance[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 Wrong venue. This is RFD, page moves are at WP:RM Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attractive Nuisance should be renamed to Attractive Nuisance (album) and Attractive Nuisance redirected to Attractive nuisance doctrine. The album is far less notable than the doctrine. Redirect at Attractive nuisance is fine as it is. Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 26 January 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.

Jobie Hughes[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 Snow Keep(non-admin closure). No valid reason to delete, target is valid, nothing further to do here. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article was closed as delete Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jobie Hughes Has been recreated as a redirect by an editor who voted to keep in the AFD. If consensus was delete as this guy is not notable then this redirect should not have been created. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Not a valid reason for deletion. If he's not notable then we can't have an article here so not only do we have no need for a redlink, but a redlink is harmful. If we have an appropriate target this should be a redirect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A redirect does not have to meet the notability guidelines like an article does. This is a plausible search term for the article it is redirected to. GB fan 14:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per EHC andGB fan. The consensus of the AfD was that he is not notable enough for his own article, it did not consider whether it was a likely search term and so has no bearing on the presence or absence of a redirect. As the first sentence of the target starts "Lorien Legacies is a series of young adult science fiction books, written by James Frey and Jobie Hughes..." that says to me that this is a very likely search term. Thryduulf (talk) 14:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. His notability as an article might have been in question, but his name serves as a valid redirect term for the Lorien Legacy series. He's known as a co-author for the series and his name has been brought up enough times in correlation with the series to expect people to use it as a search term. It's actually pretty common to have an AfD close as "delete" but still have the subject name redirect to an appropriate target regardless of whether anyone actually voted to have it redirect or not. Being non-notable doesn't mean that the previous article title can't be a redirect. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:53, 26 January 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.

CoA[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 COA (the dab page) and fix hatnote at Coenzyme A, no other mainspace links found. Tikiwont (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Coat of arms be a far more common use of that then a Coenzyme. Another option would be to target the disam page COA. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to COA (the dab page) as there are several uses there that seem equally likely - to me it means "Certificate of authenticity" more than any other meanings. Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to COA as per Thryduulf - couldn't have put it better myself. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to COA per Thryduulf. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to COA - to me it means Cover your ass Ego White Tray (talk) 04:03, 27 January 2013 (UTC) Whoops, got confused, but still retarget as noted Ego White Tray (talk) 04:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to COA since Coenzyme A is linked into the dab anyways. However, Coenzyme's short name is indeed CoA in the same way Escherichia coli is known as E. coli--Lenticel (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support retargeting, but please fix the incoming links before changing the redirect. Cheers! bd2412 T 17:41, 28 January 2013 (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.

Sugababes' forthcoming seventh studio album[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. Tikiwont (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is absolutely useless and has no value. Nobody is going to search for this specific term, the album was released three years ago yet this redirect was created a few months ago. Also gets no views nor does it have any links to it. Till 03:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This consistently gets around 25-35 hits a month, far more than the 2-3/month ascribable to bots (where do you get the figure of 0 from?), suggesting that it's linked from somewhere externally. Deletion would bring no benefits while inconveniencing real people. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually deletion would bring more benefits in this context. The redirect has the potential to cause confusion as readers may not be aware that the album was already released. The redirect serves no purpose, and it is simply illogical to have it when the album/article was out 3 years before this was created. Till 02:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this redirect has any use whatsoever - yes, there have been 19 hits in 30 days, but this is, in reality, a nonsensical search term - and since there's never more than a couple a day, those could easily all be bots. As the nominator states, this article has been out since March 2010, whereas the redirect was created in August 2012. Lukeno94 (talk) 17:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's misleading and inaccurate. The stats are not significant - virtually all mainspace redirects get similar traffic. There might be a few more than normal because this comes up whenever a user types "sugababes" in the search box and readers may click on it if they want to find out about their forthcoming album. Whereas they are then actually taken to an article about a past album. 82.132.218.66 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the traffic to mainspace redirects varies between 1-2 hits/month (likely all bots), which are the unused ones and several thousand a day (e.g. recent deaths). From experience of looking at nearly every redirect that gets nominated here for a couple of years, I know that traffic levels above 2-3 hits a month almost certainly show use by humans - bots don't visit redirects anywhere near as often as you seem to think. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unlikely synonym. --Lenticel (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not an forthcoming album. It has no use.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 01:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, title has rendered itself obsolete and impractical. bd2412 T 17:43, 28 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_26&oldid=1146311327"