Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 November 6

The nominated redirect was Re-targeted & kept. Since tomorrow is election day in the States, this term has a high potential of being used and the new target satisfies the original nomination concern. A working term does our readers more good than waiting a week to close this. -- JLaTondre 23:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not All US Elections are presidential — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.188.101 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 November 2006

• Speedy retarget to Elections in the United States instead. --Metropolitan90 22:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've retargeted it to the location proposed by Metropolitan90. Keep as it is a plausible search term and has a better target now. Picaroon9288 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was closed as Keep, as no one really wanted it deleted. The exact target is a content dispute, which shouldn't be discussed here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see why a search for "Beauvoir" should redirect here. Is it possible to direct it straight to the disambiguation page? Fayefox 17:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-redirected to disambiguation page. However, I'm not sure this RfD should be closed immediately, as it's plausible it should be deleted. No vote. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to Simone de Beauvoir (and give that article a hatnote pointing at Beauvoir (disambiguation)). Most people searching for "Beauvoir" will want the author Simone de Beauvoir, so the link should point there. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 19:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget and include the see also at top per Gavia immer. The French author seems a more likely target than the house of a confederate leader. Picaroon9288 20:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 13:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The redirect originally indicated that the Canes Venatici Cloud was the cloud of galaxies that contained the Local Group (although the term "cloud" is not commonly used to refer to a collection of groups of galaxies in astronomy). After some research and some discussion, the original Canes Venatici cloud article was made a redirect to the M94 Group article for reasons stated on the talk page for Canes Venatici cloud. In this context, the "Local Cloud" redirect no longer makes sense. The phrase has no clear formal definition in astronomy, so the redirect cannot be pointed to any other article. It should be deleted. George J. Bendo 12:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wouldn't the "Tully version" of the cloud article sit at "Local Cloud" properly? That would turn this redirect into an article. 132.205.44.134 23:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The term "Local Cloud" is more frequently used to refer to the ISM within the Milky Way, as a search with the ADS Abstract Service reveals. Tully never used the term "Local Cloud" in the sense that it had been used on Wikipedia. Someone on Wikipedia invented the term "Local Cloud" for the Tully version of the Canes Venatici Cloud. It should still be deleted. George J. Bendo 07:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 13:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cross-space redirect for a neologism used by Wikipedians on AfD and other deletion debates.--TBCΦtalk? 03:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom ;) (sorry, had to) -- Renesis (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary cross-namespace. Khatru2 17:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and salt. Likely to be recreated, but there's no plausible target. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete and salt per Arthur Rubin. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 19:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Crossnamespace redirect. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 01:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Per nom which correctly concluded that it is a neologism and that it should be used only rarely as a term and is never (as far as I can tell) actually linked. That makes is a pointless redirect. However, it has only been recreated once and that as this redirect - an action taken in response to the AFD decision. I don't see enough evidence to justify "salting" this title. By policy, page protection is to be limited to those cases where there is a demonstrated need. Rossami (talk) 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rossami and above. Per nom debate also concludes to me that we should delete this redirect. Hello32020 14:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No salt needed, not likely to be recreated again. --- RockMFR 05:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was Deleted. -- JLaTondre 13:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ireland Civil Rights Movement was originally a large essay, probably a copyvio, on the status of human rights in Northern Ireland. After about nine days, it was redirected to Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association.

The problem that I see with this is that the redirect is not actually another name for the Association, and by redirecting something on a "movement" that isn't an actual organization to a specific organization implies that they are the same thing. So I'm looking for opinions on whether the possibility that this is a plausible search term outweighs the fact that this redirect seems to endorse the Association as some sort of national movement (not to mention the fact that it preserves the apparent copyvio in the page history,) and as to whether there are any better targets for the redirect if it is too be kept. Picaroon9288 02:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as inappropriate redirect. Probably best just to remove it. -- Renesis (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was kept: nominator didn't actually want it deleted. TimBentley (talk) 05:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a section on this program in the other article with more information about it, so this one should should be replaced by a redirect. 141.156.240.102 19:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What's wrong with it (aside from the missing question mark)? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean besides the fact that List of Carmen Sandiego products#Where on Earth is Carmen Sandiego? is more informative? Please read both and compare them!! (Perhaps I should have been more explicit about the redirect.) —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject is discussed, albeit briefly, in the target article, which also discusses other related matter. Since separate coverage does not seem to be warranted, this redirect is correct. Gavia immer (u|t|c) 19:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gavia's reasoning is correct. Rossami (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My bad ... I thought that this was the procedure for proposing a redirect that does not already exist, but apparently it is for deleting a redirect. I think that the last two Keep comments imply that they agree that there should be a redirect from this less informative article. —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 04:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Makes sense to keep this redirect. Hello32020 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Once again, I screwed up ... there is no redirect a present, but I am proposing that there should be one ... and apparently you all agree, so please, SOMEONE MAKE IT HAPPEN. (Click both links and see what happens!) <Sigh!> —141.156.240.102 (talk|contribs) 23:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The nominated redirect was closed as moot, being created as an article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde Frog redirects to Eric Cartman, but as there is now a Wikipedia page about Clyde Frog, the redirect is unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bosskbeavis (talk • contribs) .

Comment: Believe nominator meant Clyde frog as that one is the redirect. -- JLaTondre 05:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but retarget to more specific article. Eluchil404 07:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above Comment from JLaTondre is correct. Clyde frog is the redirect and Clyde Frog is the new entry that has been created which should be retained. Bosskbeavis 00:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This RfD is unnecessary, the redirect has been replaced by an article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.