Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 November 14

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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Prague Half Marathon → Prague Marathon (links to redirect • history • stats) 

The only connection between these topics is that they share the same organiser. The events are held at different times of the year and attract different competitors. The Prague Marathon article mentions the Half Marathon event only once, and confusingly in the same section about the Marathon weekend's other events (of which is is not one). Better off as redlink. SFB 17:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - mentioned in the target so I see no reason to delete. A redlink is only better if the event is separately notable and there is no evidence of that. Bridgeplayer (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that a race which receives international coverage, attracts over 8000 people and is recognised as being among the best of its type by the sport's governing body is notable in its own right, but maybe that's just me ;) SFB 23:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked here which has insufficient information. A broader Google search here shows lots of athletes doing well in the race but not that much about the race other than it being a 'Gold Label' race. In order to justify its own page there needs to be sufficient reliable information from which a decent length article can be written. If you have such sources then simply write a stub. Otherwise it is better as a section of a broader article, such as the present target, which probably could then do with a rename to make it more general. Deletion makes such information we have about the race hard to find which doesn't seem a good idea. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 19:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipaedium → Wikipedia (links to redirect • history • stats)
• Wikipedium → Wikipedia (links to redirect • history • stats) Delete both – non-existant words with no links. There is no mention of either word anywhere on Wikipedia. Talk:Wikipedium has an unsourced claim on the origin of the word but it does not justify redirecting to its current target. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - nonsense words and hence confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please note the existence of this word outside Wikipedia when discussing the redirect. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this might shed some light on the reason for the redirects.--Guerillero | My Talk 04:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Mclay1 did mention an archived copy of it on Talk:Wikipedium. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect targets should be changed then to Wikipedia:Best of BJAODN#Wikipedium. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose cross namespace redirects are evil. --NYKevin @991, i.e. 22:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but none of the ones listed are XNRs. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • If they were redirected to my suggestion, they would be. The word "Wikipedium" does not exist outside of Wikipedia, so I don't see how a cross-name redirect will do any harm. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it does. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That can barely be described as existence. It's the name of a website with the same logo as MediaWiki. I'm not sure what it is but its name is clearly just a copy of Wikipedia's. The dictionary site in the results didn't actually give a definition. Th fact that Google thinks "Wikipedium" is a typo of "Wikipedia" shows that there are no substantial results. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Mclay1 has correctly interpreted my oppose. --NYKevin @203, i.e. 03:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable joke word. --Chriswaterguy talk 05:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - mainspace is not the proper venue for inside jokes. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]