Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 27[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 27, 2013

Kevin O'Neil[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. --BDD (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted - O'Neil and O'Neill are two different surnames as opposed to a pet name, and nobody listed at Kevin O'Neill is named Kevin O'Neil. Beerest355 Talk 18:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plausible typo and an aid for readers unsure of the proper spelling of the subjects listed on the target page. No objection to overwrite with disambiguation content of similarly named people with the single L if there are any such (and as long as the two pages cross-reference each other) but I don't know of any notable "Kevin O'Neil"s with the single L. Rossami (talk) 20:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep {{R from typo}} -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 23:39, 28 June 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.

Froggyburg, Virginia[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. JohnCD (talk) 19:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading, Froggyburg is neither an alternate name of Clifton[1], nor is it mentioned in the article. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Appears to be a nickname of a subdivision there. The subdivision wouldn't qualify for an article, and isn't mentioned at the target article anyway. I know of at least one case where a CDP was named after a subdivision, but that subdivision is substantial in size; this one appears to have about nine houses. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 3 July 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.

King felix music[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. Feel free to contact me if they're recreated and need salting. --BDD (talk) 06:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple redirects originally intended for non-notable band, deleted multiple times under several titles, including King Felix, a redirect page for a baseball player with no relationship to the band, and no electronic music projects of his own. Bot edits have reverted the redirects, but since they're obviously not appropriate, they should be deleted. Band page deleted twice at AFD (1, 2) and is unlikely to return. Hairhorn (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Makes no sense to redirect to Hernandez as he is a baseball player and not a band or musician. -- Whpq (talk) 16:01, 1 July 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.

Template:Tricyclic antidepressants[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. Rossami (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned - Nothing is using this. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep According to the history, this template was merged into the current redirect target. It should be retained for attribution purposes. --BDD (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per BDD. -- Cloudyjbg27512 (talk) 12:13, 10 July 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.

Unsolvability[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 Undecidable. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, I don't see any entry in Resolution that fits with Unsolvability. Should this redirect to Independence (mathematical logic) (Unprovable redirects there) or Undecidable problem (Unsolvable problem redirects there)? Solvable does not seem like the best target. Note that unsolvable and solvability are red links. TimBentley (talk) 02:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would think the best target would be Undecidable, since that's where Undecidability goes. Hairhorn (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with retargeting to Undecidable. TimBentley (talk) 03:09, 3 July 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.

Loicq de Lobel[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) 18:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete - the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject, possibly a redlink might encourage an article Jan1naD (talk • contrib) 16:08, 27 June 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_June_27&oldid=1039432767"