Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 August 27

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:29, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Albany (town), Wisconsin (disambiguation) → Albany, Wisconsin (disambiguation) (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Who would search for this? No incoming links. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Redirects should not be deleted simply because they do not have any incoming links. Please do not list this as a reason to delete a redirect. Al the best. Rich Farmbrough, 23:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Indeed, but that doesn't invalidate my first point. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, with two parentheticals it's extremely unlikely someone would search this. It's also a double redirect, as the target points to a dab page itself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The redirect makes no sense. It was created by a bot, has only ever been edited by bots, and is clearly an error (how many towns called Albany are there in Wisconsin?) Note that Albany is a disambig page, and Albany, Wisconsin is an article about the town (singular). There are a few more similar redirects which I will add to this RfD when I have a moment. HairyWombat 01:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Later. I found 10 redirects but, as none of them were created by a bot, decided not to add any to this RfD. Also, it turns out that there are three Albany's in Wisconsin. There is the town of Albany, Green County (population 775), within which is located the village of Albany, Green County (population 1,191). These two are unrelated to the town of Albany, Pepin County (population 620). HairyWombat 02:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't believe anyone is ever going to type this into a search box. Hut 8.5 14:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As an aside there are a lot of similar bot-created redirects, such as 110th_Street_(New_York_City_Subway_station)_(disambiguation), Vara_(length)_(disambiguation), or Zehra_(name)_(disambiguation). Hut 8.5 14:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Per WP:FURTHERDAB any page ending in "(disambiguation)" that redirects to a disambiguation page should be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't think that that is what it says... –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are referring to the guideline, then it says that intentional links to disambiguation pages at titles that do not end in "disambiguation" should link via a redirect that does end with that string - e.g. Mercury is a dab page and intentional links to it should go via the Mercury (disambiguation) redirect in most cases, and encourages their creation where they do not exist. It therefore logically follows that such redirects should normally be kept. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• So, if I have understood you correctly, you (and the guideline) are saying that the redirect Albany (disambiguation) should not be deleted. (That must be what you are saying because Albany is the only disambiguation page around.) I agree with you. However, Albany (disambiguation) is not the redirect under discussion. HairyWombat 06:26, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand you now, and it seems that I've been unclear. My comment relates to Hut 8.5's comment regarding other bot-created redirects rather than directly the redirect under discussion. My apologies. Thryduulf (talk) 10:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Of these three: 110th Street (New York City Subway station) (disambiguation) does not point to a disambig page, so I have put it up for speedy deletion with {{db-g6}}; Zehra (name) (disambiguation) points to a disambig page, and so should be kept; Vara (length) (disambiguation) points to a page which is neither fish nor fowl, so I guess it should be kept. HairyWombat 16:23, 4 September 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.

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Jesse Walker (meteorologist) → WTWO (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Non-notable person. Redirect is not really a plausible search term either. Drmies (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - curiously, being a non-notable person is actually a keep reason. Had the subject been notable then there would be an argument to delete, per WP:REDLINK, to encourage the creation of an article. However, being non-notable (and my research confirms the lack of notability) a redirect has the benefit of discouraging page creation. There is just about enough content at the target to make this redirect useful. It is actually a plausible search term; someone looking for this person, and entering 'Jesse Walker' in the search box, will be offered this redirect so it will do its job. This redirect is over four years old and deletion might break links in external sites for no good reason. Finally, the nomination does not contain a valid deletion reason. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:01, 27 August 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.