Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 21

January 21[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 21, 2015.

Flipnote Studio 3D/version 2[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) 19:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Flipnote Studio 3D/version 2 → Flipnote Studio 3D (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Odd redirect title that appears as a subpage. This page was created to preserve attributions per WP:A; the attributions that were at this title have been moved to Flipnote Studio 3D (application). Steel1943 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hoist by your own petard, this is obviously ~~Keep~~ for the attributions. Si Trew (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Si Trew, as I stated above, I've moved the attributions to Flipnote Studio 3D (application), and referenced the attribution move on the nominated redirect's only linked page. Steel1943 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess, reading that, that this is in the nature of a Procedural delete, and I am happy with that: I see why you wouldn't want just boldly to do it yourself (and I can't). Si Trew (talk) 08:52, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. History attribution now occupying a reasonable link/search name, instead of a useless one -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 07:54, 23 January 2015 (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.

Saraswati (goddess)[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) 19:15, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswati (goddess) → Saraswati (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Saraswati is the article about the goddess, which can be directly linked. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 19:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Goes where it should. Si Trew (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a perfectly valid {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Steel1943 (talk) 01:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that; turns out that the "(goddess)" disambiguator is actually ambiguous due to multiple subjects on the English Wikipedia that are referred to by this term. My vote will change here shortly. Steel1943 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Si Trew, did you by chance see the hatnote on Saraswati that refers the reader to Sarasvati River as essentially a previous name for Saraswati? Because of that, I'm not 100% sure if some of the articles need to be merged, or if Saraswati (disambiguation) needs to be created, and the nominated redirect should redirect to that page. (Actually, I think that I'm going to go ahead and create the disambiguation page since it would have at least three entries, including the current primary topic.) Steel1943 (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...And scratch all of that. Turns out that one of the subjects in the hatnote has a different spelling, and its spelling is referenced nowhere in the article as an alternate spelling for its target. So, I'm changing that, and reinstating my old vote. Steel1943 (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saraswati may or may not be an alternative spelling of Sarasvati (river), but Sarasvati is certainly an alternative spelling for "Saraswati" (goddess). It's the same word. --dab (𒁳) 14:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Steel1943: Hehe, nice to see someone else's detective work, though, glad it's not just me. Si Trew (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree it goes where it should. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Lenticel ^(talk) 10:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not really needed now, but it does no harm. It isn't clear that this is the "primary topic" at all, and the original point was disambiguation from Sarasvati River. --dab (𒁳) 14:40, 27 January 2015 (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.

Naman Ramachandran[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 procedural close. The redirect has been converted into an article. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Naman Ramachandran → Variety (magazine) (links · history · stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

This person writes for the magazine, but is not mentioned at the article. Also, he might be notable, so red-linking to encourage an article might be a good idea. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? I will just create the article with some basic sources, then tag it for expansion. I will add other web sources to a section like "further reading", encouraging other ambitious editors to make use of them. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable and a sufficiently sourced article is drafted then this RfD can be closed. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, make the article. With WP:RS please. Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2015 (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.