Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 9

November 9

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 9, 2011

Chimera shetterly

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 'retarget both to Will Shetterly#Novels. Thryduulf (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects refer to Chimera (Will Shetterly novel) (never an article), which is only mentioned in a list at Will Shetterly. They aren't plausible redirects anyways. TimBentley (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. Also the target article contains no info about the novel. The Will Shetterly article just lists the novel with no description (and no red link), so retargeting will have no sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget both to Will Shetterly#Novels. The way forward is to expand the information at the target not to delete the redirects. Both are long-standing redirects so deletion could cause problems (bookmarks, mirrors etc) and since both are harmless there are no policy-compliant reasons for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to believe that someone seeking Chimera (Will Shetterly novel) bookmarked the redirect page to the disambiguation article with no notice of the novel. Same goes for mirrors. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They previously targeted to Chimera (novel), a disamb page which listed this book. The reason why we keep long-standing redirects, provided they are harmless, is that it is not possible to know which external sites may have links to them. Redirects are cheap and, consequently, there is no reason to risk harm by deleting them unless they are, themselves, in some way harmful. This has been our policy for some years. In this case the redirects, apart from being harmless, could have potential use. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:09, 10 November 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.

HMS Alsation

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. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete redirect as mispelling. The redirect is to a ship that was in her early years the SS Alsatian and at somepoint during the First World War HMS Alsatian. The redirect is not linked to and a redirect under the correct spelling has been created. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nomination. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible typo as shown by the hits. We keep such harmless redirects and this one should be tagged 'Template:R from misspelling'. The nomination fails to specify any policy grounds for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:48, 9 November 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.

Kerio volcano

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. DrKiernan (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as improbable search term. This was created as a substub article in 2007, without anyone's ever noticing that we already had an article on the topic: Kerið. I've redirected it to the latter article, but the misspelling is egregious enough that I can't envision anyone's using it as a search term. Deor (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It has relatively high hit count, and frankly it is probable that some readers will mistake letter "ð" for "o" with diacritics. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The hits may have been the result of adventitious visitors via the disambig page Kerio or via Index of Iceland-related articles, both of which had entries (which I have now removed) for Kerio volcano. I still doubt that they came from searches by people looking for Kerið. Deor (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most people can't tell the weird o-shaped letter is a D-bar like letter. Regardless of how many Wikipedia editors think English-speaking people know letters that don't appear on English keyboards, they still don't appear on English keyboards, so people will pick some letter that looks like it. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - highly probable typo as shown by the hits and that it was previously an article. Should be tagged 'Template:R from misspelling'. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:50, 10 November 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.

GART (disambiguation)

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, with no prejudice to a future discussion about retargeting GART and moving the dab page currently there to [[GART (dismabiguation). Thryduulf (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • GART (disambiguation) → GART (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Nothing links here and GART (to which this redirects) is a DAB anyway, so redirect to DAB with no need for it. See WP:INTDABLINK. Si Trew (talk) 14:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What are you reading on WP:INTDABLINK that you believe supports deletion of this redirect? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "With few exceptions, creating links to disambiguation pages is erroneous. Links should instead point to a relevant article." (Except, of course, a hatnote on an article called GART, but GART is not an article.)
The section "Redirects to disambiguation pages" lists valid reasons for R to DAB. While it "includes" the reasons and so is not exhaustive, I think that it is a strong hint that a use of Topic (DAB) being a redirect to Topic which is the dab is not covered by the reasons listed, so it seems reasonable to question it. (I had taken it that INTDABLINK covered the whole of section 8.5, and shortcut FURTHERDAB below it applied only to the para of text to its left.) Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I didn't say I wanted it deleted. The "D" in "RfD" stands for "discussion". Si Trew (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Most users looking for Graphics Address Remapping Table probably won't know the full name, as it is ordinarily referred just as gart with no comments on the name. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That proposal probably should be brought up on Talk:GART. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would wait for this discussion to be somehow resolved first. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - whilst I agree that this redirect has no current utility, equally there is no need to delete it and the default for redirects is to keep. I agree that 'prime use' for GART is more appropriate to a subsequent discussion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose we could help to establish it by page stats, but since I only just created Groupement des autorités responsables de transport I could argue such stats are not significant. However, I would not in fact argue that (the French transport article is very much a minor supporting article)... but then, how many of those actually come through either DAB rather than some other search or linkthrough, would be harder to tell. Si Trew (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it can be just reasoned by WP:COMMONSENSE. ;-) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:INTDABLINK is pretty clear -- 'To link to a disambiguation page (rather than to a page whose topic is a specific meaning), link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that's a redirect—for example, link to the redirect America (disambiguation) rather than the target page at "America". (If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with {{R to disambiguation page}}.)' (Emphasis added.) In order for editors to be able to link to 'the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)"', that title needs to exist. Deleting this redirect would defeat the purpose. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:39, 15 November 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.

File:PICT4508.JPG

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. DrKiernan (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retitle from procedural name, Usage updated. Was previously tagged as speedy (per advice) but contested. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:56, 9 November 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.

Petroldragon

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. DrKiernan (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Basically I do not know if this term exist. It should be a company of the past founded by Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur), but I have been unable to find notable references about it.--79.6.2.187 (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems fairly notable (see [1] [2] [3]) and the target page contains a stub on topic. I would keep everything as is for natural development. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - well, notability would be grounds for a standalone article. We merge non-notable companies somewhere sensible and redirect to them. In this case there is good information at the target so the redirect is well useful pending someone writing a separate article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP - Editors want to get rid of this article because of personal bias. 84.106.26.81 (talk) 05:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it clearly should not be a separate article, but it is a defunct company created by the target. Keep, per Bridgeplayer. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Arthur Rubin. While there may not be enough material on Petroldragon to create a separate article (there certainly isn't enough in the Rossi biography at the moment) there's no reason to delete this redirect. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 16 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_9&oldid=1039424497"