Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 8

November 8

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 8, 2011

Japanese aircraft carrier Aso and Japanese aircraft carrier Kasagi

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. DrKiernan (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese aircraft carrier Aso → Unryū class aircraft carrier (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
Japanese aircraft carrier Kasagi → Unryū class aircraft carrier (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Seems notable, should be deleted so that the blue link does not suggest the target article exists (per WP:RED) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 19:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until someone takes courage to storm it. Currently it gives at least some information, which is better then red link. Alternately You could create a stub article linking to Unryū class aircraft carrier. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly notable ship; delete per WP:RED to encourage article creation. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do You call to WP:RED? It says nothing about deleting as a mean of red link creation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I missed the fact that the ship never entered service - doh! Hence not likely to be notable so the redirect to useful information is correct. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, ship was never finished and isn't notable. Eventually I'll expand the class article to cover these two ships in a bit more detail on their construction and fate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Sturm; unfinished ships generally do not warrant articles (unless something particularly notable happened to the hulls, as was the case with Japanese battleship Tosa, for example). No need to delete the redirect. Parsecboy (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2011 (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.

Newbury Street

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 page moved over redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newbury Street → Newbury Street (Boston) (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Delete so I can Move Newbury Street (Boston) to Newbury Street.( Uncontroversial.) WikidSmaht (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've performed the move for you. For future reference, the place to request moves that you cannot perform yourself is Wikipedia:Requested moves (WP:RM). You'll normally get a faster response there. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2011 (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.

Chien Tan Overseas Youth Activity Center

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. DrKiernan (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chien Tan Overseas Youth Activity Center → Wikimania (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

deletion or new article. The redirect makes no sense, other than the center held Wikimania in 2007, but the article has no mention of the Youth Center Mistakefinder (talk) 07:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, as there is no good target. Shilin District would be a logical place to expect coverage, but there is no mention of it there (or anywhere else I can find). Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as any mention of Chien Tan Overseas Youth Activity Center was removed from the target article more then 4 years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarkoff (talk • contribs) 11:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - decidedly a misleading redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:56, 9 November 2011 (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.

Basar (District)

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 Basar (District), Retarget Basar, India (town). DrKiernan (talk) 20:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basar (District) → Basar, Andhra Pradesh (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]
Basar, India (town) → Basar, Andhra Pradesh (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Request for deletion as the redirect does'nt make sense. There is no Basar district. Basar is a town in Adilabad district of Andhra Pradesh, India. So I request you to delete this redirect or if a redirect is absolutely necessary move it to Basar (Adilabad district) which makes more sense. Same thing with redirect Basar, India (town) which is also unnecessary as there are two or more towns in India with name Basar. Thanks --WorLD8115 (TalK) 05:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Basar (District) as per nomination. Basar, India (town) deserves separate discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added Basar, India (town) to the nomination. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basar (District) as misleading; disambiguate Basar, India (town). Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basar (District) as misleading, retarget Basar, India (town) to Basar. TimBentley (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2011 (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.

Forefront 2010

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. With one voice in support of the deletion nomination and no contrary opinions expressed after 3 weeks, I don't think further time will produce a different outcome. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forefront 2010 → Forefront Protection for Exchange Server (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Nothing links here and we don't have anything called "Forefront 2010". We have Microsoft Forefront but that's a name for a family of products, not a software suite. Forefront family has a lot of members and this redirect is equally ineligible for all of them. Fleet Command (talk) 14:30, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forefront 2010 has previously been used for Microsoft Forefront Protection 2010 for Exchange Server, presumably because it is easier on the eye, easier to remember & recognise, easier to type in. Tom Pippens (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:41, 8 November 2011 (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.

PHP script new features

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 08:19, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PHP script new features → PHP (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

Implausible search term for the current target, has no inbound links, and gets virtually no traffic – it is really only around for historical reasons. PleaseStand (talk) 23:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Whatever "PHP script new features" are, it's not clear that they are discussed in the article. For that reason, and because its unused, deletion seems like the most reasonable course of action. —mako ๛ 17:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Wikipedia:MediaWiki, the current name of the original target of this redirect. The "new" features are those written by Magnus Manske that got us away from UseModWiki. Let's keep this redirect, if for no other reason than its great age: not many titles have been around since 2002. Nyttend (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: the name doesn't provide the historical background, otherwise not notable or needed. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:39, 8 November 2011 (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.

History of Montenegrins

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 Withdrawn. DrKiernan (talk) 20:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

History of Montenegrins → History of Montenegro (links to redirect • history • stats) [ Closure: keep/delete ]

*Delete as (1) non-notable, (2) by far non-neutal: the redirect implies the equality of Montenegro and Montenegrins, while no consensus on the question even in Montenegro itself. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Montenegrins#History. A couple of preliminary points. Firstly, being non-notable is not grounds for deletion of a redirect; indeed if a subject is notable then it should have its own page. Secondly, being perceived to be 'non-neutral' is also not a basis for deletion; WP:RNEUTRAL explains. This redirect was a former article, here, so for outright deletion we need to be assured that no content was ever merged anywhere. Having said that it was redirect when discussed, arguably out of process, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of Montenegrins. That AFD was closed "The result was redirect to History of Montenegro. This discussion is on a redirect, not an article. Discussions on the appropriate target should take place at Redirects for Discussion.". So, we are here, and discussion takes place within the framework of redirects policy. In that context, there is some use of this redirect so it is not an implausible search terms and I see no harm from it. My suggested retarget would take the searcher to content that they are likely to be interested in, and seems the best way forward. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for me, are permitted in some circumstances means that non-neutral redirects may be kept in cases named in WP:RNEUTRAL. The article was never moved, excluding reasons (1) and (2) and google search yelds several thousand results to a single pseuo news site under different names and the single quote from History of Montenegro, which is already deleted in the article before the AfD, and a so there is no well established (as per WP:N) term "History of Montenegrins". BTW, what some use are You talking about? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 'some use' referred to 40 odd hits per month. Not many I agree but above background noise. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to withdraw this request and keep the redirect as is, as I realised that this redirect serves the widely spread POV. After rethinking the issue I've understood that in this RfD I was motivated by my hatred towards this POV, which doesn't actually dismiss its spread and numbers of its supporters. At the same time I would object retargeting the article, as it would indeed make the redirect unneeded. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2011 (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.