Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 2

The result of the discussion was delete--Aervanath (talk) 12:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because novice user must have created this redirect by error. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as though harmless, it is an unlikely term with the / at the end. PaulJones (talk) 16:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless redirect and unlikely search term. It appears that someone may have been attempting to create a subpage of Business Process Modeling Notation. •••Life of Riley (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, appears to be an error. It was created as a copy of the "Overview" section of the article before being redirected. —Snigbrook 23:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was keep (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion Same as for "Planet Sphinx" I recommended for deletion yesterday: All Honorverse articles now use Manticore (Honorverse) so this redirect is not in use, and nobody ever searches first for "Planet" and then for its name so nobody will ever use it. Debresser (talk) 08:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is so against logic of search function that I would say strong delete. Debresser (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a person looking for a fictional planet named Manticore may not realise that it is part of an entity called the Honorverse. Since (as of the morning of 2 February 2009) there has been no actual planet, either discovered or identified, to be named Manticore, this is not a harmful redirect. Should such a planet be so named or discovered, of course the redirect can be overwritten with the appropriate article. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as it is a logical redirect, and if this goes then so should Planet Mars, Planet Saturn etc. PaulJones (talk) 16:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. This wordorder is so illogical, that there is no reason to keep it. Debresser (talk) 17:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • What, you've never heard of Planet Earth? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a reasonable alternate term for its intended target (like "Planet Earth" or "Planet Mongo") , and there's no real planet named Manticore this could be confused with. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Can't agree You all mention Planet Earth, but there is no such article, just a disambiguation page. Don't forget that if somebody would look for "Planet Manticore" the Wikipedia search engine would show him that there is not such page, but the first alternative it would provided would be "Manticore (planet)" (you can check this yourself by searching for "Planet Medusa" e.g.) Debresser (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the nice thing about Wikipedia - we can disagree agreeably. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was kept as nom has effectively withdrawn the nomination and no one else advocated deletion or retargeting (non admin close)B.Wind (talk) 06:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion All Honorverse article now use Gryphon (Honorverse) so this redirect is not in use, and since it is the less obvious redirect compared to Gryphon (Honorverse) it has no function. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as it is logical and prevents duplication of articles. PaulJones (talk) 16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as someone researching the planet Gryphon might not be aware that it is in the Honorverse. This redirect is not doing any harm unless there is an actual planet Gryphon, which, the last time I checked, has not been named or discovered. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a reasonable alternate term for its intended target, and there's no real planet named Gryphon this could be confused with. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree to keep this redirect now. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was kept as nom has effectively withdrawn the nomination and no one else advocated deletion or retargeting (non admin close)B.Wind (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion All Honorverse article now use Beowulf (Honorverse) so this redirect is not in use, and since it is the less obvious redirect compared to Beowulf (Honorverse) it has no function. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as it is logical and prevents duplication of articles. PaulJones (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as someone researching the planet Beowulf might not be aware that it is in the Honorverse. This redirect is not doing any harm unless there is an actual planet Beowulf, which, the last time I checked, has not been named or discovered. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a reasonable alternate term for its intended target, and there's no real planet named Beowulf this could be confused with. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree to keep this redirect now. Debresser (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was kept as nom has effectively withdrawn the nomination and no one else advocated deletion or retargeting (non admin close)B.Wind (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion All Honorverse article now use Manticore (Honorverse) so this redirect is not in use, and since it is the less obvious redirect compared to Manticore (Honorverse) it has no function. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as it is logical and prevents duplication of articles. PaulJones (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as someone researching the planet Manticore might not be aware that it is in the Honorverse. This redirect is not doing any harm unless there is an actual planet Manticore, which, the last time I checked, has not been named or discovered. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a reasonable alternate term for its intended target, and there's no real planet named Manticore this could be confused with. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree to keep this redirect now. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was kept as nom has effectively withdrawn the nomination and no one else advocated deletion or retargeting (non admin close)B.Wind (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deletion All Honorverse article now use Medusa (Honorverse) so this redirect is not in use, and since it is the less obvious redirect compared to Medusa (Honorverse) it has no function. Debresser (talk) 09:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as it is logical and prevents duplication of articles. PaulJones (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as someone researching the planet Medusa might not be aware that it is in the Honorverse. This redirect is not doing any harm unless there is an actual planet Medusa, which, the last time I checked, has not been named or discovered.147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a reasonable alternate term for its intended target, and there's no real planet named Medusa this could be confused with. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree to keep this redirect now. Debresser (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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