Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 23

January 23

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2010

Harry Potter : movies

The result of the discussion was Retarget to Harry Potter (film series)~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget this one to Harry Potter (film series). David Pro (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Colon insertion seems to make it unlikely as a search query. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: who's going to type "Harry Potter," space, colon, space, "movies"?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I stand corrected! Retarget per the below comments.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per proposer, Harry_Potter_:_movies has been viewed 63 times in 200912. Josh Parris 09:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget gets about an average of 30 or so per month dips to 20 at times peaks around 60. I think those numbers are sinificant enough for a redirect Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget with the number of hits retarget to Harry Potter (film series) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 01:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Making of temple of doom

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no sense. David Pro (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul Po Wang

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The term isn't mentioned in the target page. David Pro (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC) David Pro (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There seems to be absolutely no connection whatsoever.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I don't see the connection, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

November 9, 1985

The result of the discussion was Retarget to 1985, although a larger discussion would indeed be useful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion. There's nothing significant said about that date in the target article, nor was there any sourced material about the original creater's claim about it's the most Metal albums released in one day. Mistakefinder (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, if anything it should redirect to the year, not specifically it in music. But even in that state it seems silly to have navigational aids for every date in history pointing to year articles. --Taelus (talk) 16:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the year; I can understand trying to look up a specific date. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to 1985. I would suggest retargetting to November 1985 but that itself is a redirect to 1985. I can see the benefit in having redirects from every specific day, certainly from the 20th Century to the current day, to the relevant month or year article. A very few days will merit redirects elsewhere, e.g. September 11, 2001, February 3, 1959, November 11, 1918, July 4, 1776, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree with Thryduulf's suggestions about those major dates that are significant in world events, including November 9, 1989 (not sure if this exists), but it seems silly to have ever single date in the 20th century to have a redirect. If we agree that it is to be done, then it'd become a big project and a rather low value one at that. Anyone looking for a specfic date can simply look in the year for the date they're looking for (unless they don't know what year). Besides, doesn't every day of the year have an entry? Someone searching for a specific date with year may often have the year wrong, so it may be helpful to redirect to the Day of Year entry (in this case, November 9 to help confirm the year or discover her/his mistake. In the case of September 11, a disambiguation link has been provided to the September 11, 2001 attacks. I guess the question is what constitutes signficant date in history. I'd say any date that is significant to the whold world, a continent, a large geographic region, or major contribution to knowledge or technology. For example the invention of the automobile, internet (if any one date can be pinned to that), the release of the first PC or Windows, etc. I'd say mainly for geopolitical events though. --Mistakefinder (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)--Mistakefinder (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should probably be having the discussion about which dates merit redirects elsewhere (I'm not sure where though - feel free to start such a discussion and link to it here), but of the dates I used as examples February 3, 1959 relates to western popular music/popular culture, while all the others are geopolitical events. Anything that cannot be tied down to a specific significant date (e.g. invention of the motorcar was), or where the common knowledge isn't of a specific year (for example in Britain the Gunpowder Plot and 5 November are inextricably associated with one another, but the year in which is happened is not nearly as widely known, so November 5, 1605 (or 5 November 1605) should not redirect there). We also need to try and be NPOV in what we include, so for example if there is an equivalent of February 3, 1959 in say Russian popular culture we should allow that. Independence days get tricky - while the USA's was a significant international event (at least looking back at it from a modern perspective), can the same be said of 6 March 1957 when Ghana declared its independence? The partition of Ireland in 1922 was very significant, but does the specific day retain significance in popular knowledge? What about natural disasters - December 26, 2004 currently redirects to December 2004#December 26, 2004 on the same day a language-use survey was published in China and in the Ukraine it was the day of the run-off vote in the presidential election - are these as significant? The 1989#October listing contains only one entry for October 17, 1989 should this redirect to the article about the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake? January 12, 2009 has lots of entries, is the Haiti earthquake the most significant? I don't know the answers here. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:HebrewText

The result of the discussion was keep. Jafeluv (talk) 09:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Template:HebrewText → Template:Contains Hebrew text (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Redirect in Template Namespace is not employed in any useful fashion, but WP:CSD#T3 tag was declined and this venue was recommended by Shubinator (talk · contribs).   — Jeff G. ツ 14:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Continues the naming scheme of {{ChineseText}}, {{JapaneseText}}, {{IndicText}}, etc. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CyberCobra... part of a namingscheme. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Vectorize

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in Template Namespace is not employed in any useful fashion, but WP:CSD#T3 tag was declined and this venue was recommended by Shubinator (talk · contribs).   — Jeff G. ツ 14:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep vectorize - verb: "To convert an image into a vector graphics format." Which is what that the target template requests. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems like an appropriate synonym. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, I don't see why we should make it harder for people to use these templates. Thryduulf (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mccain John

The result of the discussion was keep John Sydney McCain III, delete others. Jafeluv (talk) 09:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all unbelievable typos and/or implausible search terms. Nothing links to any of them. SE7Talk/Contribs 14:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Mccain John, as this seems a plausible search term. No opinion about 2008 Republican Presidential Nominee. Delete the rest per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum: My opinion regarding John Sydney McCain III is now Keep per the comments below. If this is kept I would support Olaf Davis' proposed creation of John Sydney McCain. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete #1, #2, #3, #4, and especially #6. Neutral on #5. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep John Sydney McCain III, which is a highly plausible misspelling of his full name John Sidney McCain III. Delete the rest.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep John Sydney McCain III as a {{R from mispelling}} 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep John Sydney McCain III as a plausible misspelling and delete the rest as implausible (I declined R3 taggings on two of these on the grounds that they're not recently created). I'm also tempted to create John Sydney McCain as probably even more likely, but I'll wait for the outcome of this RfD in case anyone wants to comment on that too. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Template:Not in citation given

The result of the discussion was Keep ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect in Template Namespace is not employed in any useful fashion, but WP:CSD#T3 tag was declined and this venue was recommended by Shubinator (talk · contribs).   — Jeff G. ツ 14:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • very strong keep - this is the phrase that is displayed in articles to which the template is applied, therefore it is very likely to be used by someone who has seen it on other articles. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, makes perfect sense to me, I think I may have even used it in the past. Whilst this may not see widespread use, it is beneficial to new users. We don't want to get to the point where new users have to sit learning lots of specific terms because we have deleted the intuitive options. --Taelus (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. Rather more intuitive than the template's actual name if you want to use it and have previously seen it elsewhere. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Rt. Hon. Kenneth Harry Clarke

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard Kenneth Clarke referred to with the name Harry, ever. I doubt anyone ever has. Totally implausible search term, especially with the overly complicated prefix SE7Talk/Contribs 13:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an implausible search term, combining an abbreviated honorific and full personal name. Ken Clarke, as he is perhaps best known, does not routinely use his middle name. Thryduulf (talk) 15:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Equus (play) as metaphor for horse and man

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely implausible search query Cybercobra (talk) 10:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's not even a metaphor for horse and man, is it? Isn't it expressly about horse and man?  Glenfarclas  (talk) 04:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Cybercobra (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, these were redirected instead of deleted not too long after the articles themselves were deleted, I believe. I think too much time has passed for anybody to still consider going there. Delete. --Fbv65edel — t — c // 17:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

"Microsoft Hearts"

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations marks invalidate, as per numerous previous discussions. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harry Potter aur Aag Ka Pyala

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign names not a worthy redirect, per "Clarification of foreign language redirects", "Redirects from foreign languages", and the "Corée du Sud" discussion. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Phoenix escapes

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not in any way an applicable redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too general and ambiguous --Cybercobra (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Happy Potter 6

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal nonsense. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Too drastic a misspelling. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

HP^

The result of the discussion was Retarget HP! and Delete the others. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm failing to see something obvious, this is complete nonsense. No links. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Look at your keyboard- HP^ is what you get if you don't lay off the shift key trying to type HP6, which redirects to the Half-Blood Prince article, which is the 6th Harry Potter book. HP! should redirect to HP1, but the others seem plausible enough to me. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect HP! to the dab page HP1 and mark with {{R from mispelling}} then redirect the others to HP(number here) and create dab pages at those locations. 76.66.192.206 (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    All right, so there is a deeper meaning. Nonetheless, I find them entirely superfluous, a persuasion only ameliorated by the fact that the books aren't actually called HP1, HP2, etc., and that anyone who accidentally types HP!, HP@, etc., will see their mistake and type the correct term in the search box. — the Man in Question (in question) 04:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Redirects from HP1 etc, kind of make sense, but these are very unlikely to be useful. Jafeluv (talk) 09:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Snape kills Dumbledore

The result of the discussion was No real consensus for deletion ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a sentence, not a redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep given how widespread the meme is. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Icklibõgg

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More fan fiction. Not mentioned in target article. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Cybercobra (talk) 10:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: part of a rumored title for book 6, Harry Potter and the Toenail of Icklibogg (see e.g. [1]); I think the fan fiction came later. Nevertheless, seems an unlikely search term, and since it isn't mentioned in the target article, I can't really see the sense in keeping this. Scog (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Harry Potter and the Green Flame Torch

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another work of fan fiction. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Harry Potter and the Last Horcrux

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A work of fan fiction. Not a name by which the novel is referred to. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hogwarts Hallows

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the name of a fan site. The deathly hallows have little to do with Hogwarts, and are never referred to by any such name. The name seems to be confusing the Hallows with the Horcruxes, which are indeed connected with Hogwarts. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

All was well

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final words of the novel are not famous enough to merit a redirect. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I doubt it was the only series in history to end in these words. Potentially ambiguous or confusing to the end user. --Taelus (talk) 12:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The uber wand

The result of the discussion was Delete. NW (Talk) 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a name by which the elder wand (to which it refers) is called. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Cybercobra (talk) 10:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as slang, possibly per WP:MADEUP. In a way it is also a matter of opinion as to what "the uber wand" would be, thus this is not a helpful navigational aid. --Taelus (talk) 12:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Harry Potter2007

The result of the discussion was delete. Jafeluv (talk) 09:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improbable and poorly spaced. Looks more like a convention than a book title. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete, it could have possibly been used as an inbound external link, but the page view statistics contradict this possibility. --Taelus (talk) 12:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

The book where fred weasley dies

The result of the discussion was Delete per WP:G7: deleted by author. Non-admin closure. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extraordinary, improbable nonsense. Not to mention it is also The book where remus lupin dies, The book where tonks dies, The book where dobby dies, The book where bellatrix lestrange dies, The book where voldemort dies, The book where snape dies, and why not even The book where harry potter dies—and resurrects!. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Cybercobra (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a useful navigational aid or search term. --Taelus (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, I deleted it.   JJ (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

What happens in the last harry potter book

The result of the discussion was Delete per WP:G7: deleted by author. Non-admin closure. — the Man in Question (in question) 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is yet another question redirect. Delete per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#What is wikipedia. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom --Cybercobra (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous consensus on such redirects. --Taelus (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lol, deleted.   JJ (talk) 23:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Deathly mhallows

The result of the discussion was Keep HarryPotterandtheDeathlyHallows, Harry Potter and the Relics of Death, Harry Potter and the Insignia of Death, Harry Potter and the Gifts of Death and Delete the rest. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All implausible misspellings or paraphrases that redirect to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. None of these were working titles or rumored titles. — the Man in Question (in question) 01:26, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep the following: Harry Potter and the Relics of Death, Harry Potter and the Insignia of Death, Harry Potter and the Gifts of Death since they are official translations of the title in other languages (retranslated back into English; see Harry_Potter_and_the_Deathly_Hallows#Translations). Delete the rest. --Cybercobra (talk) 10:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are translations of foreign names valid redirects? That seems in contradiction with "Redirects from foreign languages". — the Man in Question (in question) 23:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's merely an essay and does not appear to apply to this particular case. TL;DR wrt the discussion page. I personally see no problem with the redirects in question; they're completely plausible, just not heavily used. --Cybercobra (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Right you are (about the essay), and I should have worded it more clearly. What I'm really getting at is that I can't imagine why anyone would translate a name from a foreign language and then search it here, especially when the name belongs to a series. — the Man in Question (in question) 19:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I could see a fansite / magazine mentioning them and thus prompting someone to Wikipedia them. Again, not likely, but certainly possible; they are entirely official, and they aren't misspellings/typos, unlike the other redirects up for deletion. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm, well, if a fansite/magazine is mentioning them, then the reader already knows the proper name. — the Man in Question (in question) 05:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Harry Potter and the Deathly Hall, Harry Potter and the Deathly Halls, Harry potter and the Relics of the Dead, HarryPotterandtheDeathlyHallows, Harry Potter and the Relics of Death, Harry Potter and the Insignia of Death, Harry Potter and the Gifts of Death. Delete the rest. The ones I highlighted are plausible search terms in my eyes, and may exist as inbound external links. The last three as pointed out are translations, CamalCase redirects do no harm and may be used externally, Deathly Hall is a plausible search term, as is Deathly Halls, as I can see them being used. This nomination may benefit from unbundling as this could get complicated if each respondant keeps some deletes the rest. --Taelus (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any evidence people link using CamelCase? I'm skeptical. --Cybercobra (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well we used to be forced to use CamelCase, although that was a long time ago. I can imagine external websites utilising them however, and I see no harm in keeping one so that all versions of capitalisation are able to be used as search terms. --Taelus (talk) 16:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether the Hall and Halls redirects are plausible (which I'm not really seeing), anyone who begins to type the name in the search box will be immediately provided with the link to the correct page. — the Man in Question (in question) 23:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Erin Hunter Plopy

The result of the discussion was Delete. NW (Talk) 19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not sure what Plopy means, and almost never used. Brambleclawx 19:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, historically got a couple of dozen hits a month, but I presume that was from an internal link as that has died down now and there are no internal links at the moment. No history other than creation. Josh Parris 09:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - every Google hit for this "pseudonym" is a link to Wikipedia or its mirrors. Nothing else supports its use. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Kate Cary and Cherith Baldry

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rarely used. Kate Cary and Cherith Baldry are two of the authors who write under the psuedonym Erin Hunter, but I highly doubt anyone would look them both up at once. Brambleclawx 19:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are several articles linking to this redirect. It will have to be bypassed if deleted. I suspect it will affect the readability of the articles too. Josh Parris 09:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The links were only used in infoboxes as clarification directly after a fully linked "Erin Hunter", and I just went through and replaced "Kate Cary and Cherith Baldry" with "Kate Cary and Cherith Baldry", with no detriment to readability. The redirect is now unused. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cybercobra. No reason to link to a collective name when both authors have articles of their own. Jafeluv (talk) 09:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Erin Hunter (disambiguation)

The result of the discussion was Delete ~ Amory (u • t • c) 06:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rarely used. Also, nobody would type "disambiguation" into their search query. Brambleclawx 19:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have an opinion about this particular redirect, but I frequently type "(disambiguation)" in search queries where I suspect that the usage of a term I'm after is not the primary topic and I don't know what the dismabiguator used is. This is actually more common than the description makes it sound. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Implausible search query excepting power-user Wikipedians. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of the WP:Disambiguation guideline for naming pages and redirects. Anything with "(disambiguation)" ought only point at a disambiguation page. Josh Parris 09:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you look at the history of the article, at the end of 2008 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Erin_Hunter&oldid=257785890 it was a disambiguation page. Someone turned it into an article. Someone created this redirect in late 2007, so for over a year, it was a dab page... 76.66.192.206 (talk) 04:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Yes, but the page changed so much that we couldn't really count it as a disambiguation anymore. Brambleclawx 15:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how about moving the former dab pages content onto the redirect? 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Its not a dab anymore, so the disambiguation in the title would be misleading. Brambleclawx 19:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what I meant, I meant the dab page (oldid 257785890) 70.29.210.242 (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because the dab page is now unnecessary. Brambleclawx 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to avoid breaking incoming links (WP:RFD#KEEP). It was a dab page for over a year; mirrors and other outside sources don't change their links instantaneously with Wikipedia. In addition, editors and other readers sometimes click links while looking at obsolete versions of articles. Keeping the redirect maintains the "user friendliness" of Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2010_January_23&oldid=1148048128"