Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 7

< May 6
May 8 >

May 7

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 7, 2012

Physics major

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 as is. — ξxplicit 22:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect exists only because of an xkcd comic and serves only to cause contention about its target. There hasn't been a need for it before, nor for similarly named "major" articles, and it's implausible that anyone would search for it as such. Bsdaemon (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Even if it wasn't needed before, the xkcd comic ( http://xkcd.com/1052/ ) will cause many people to search Wikipedia for "physics major" for years to come, and redirects are for anything (common misspellings, being featured in a popular publication) that causes users to search for the wrong phrase. It's protected now, so vandalism isn't a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It will cause them to check whether it really does redirect to Engineer. A deleted article record would be no less useful to that end than a redirection, and would be no more likely to be vandalized. In any case, since the redirect exists purely because of the xkcd comic and the sense of that comic refers to a person who majored in or is majoring in Physics rather than the coursework, Physicist would be a more appropriate target for the redirect. Bsdaemon (talk) 00:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Minor clarification; you cannot protect a redirect from vandalism if it does not exist. You can, however, ask that it be salted so it cannot be recreated, so if this deletion discussion results in a deletion, we should ask for that. I have no opinion as to whether it should redirect somewhere else. If nobody else objects, let's ask for it to redirect to Physicist while we discuss whether to delete it. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If people search simply because of XKCD, they're only looking to see if it really directs to Engineer, and Wikipedia does not exist simply to serve a random XKCD comic. If people want to read about Physics on Wikipedia, they can do so without this redirect. (Or if anyone thinks otherwise, should we therefore create "major" redirects for every article to do with education? And what about the rest of the world outside of the US, are we going to create Physics degree and so on too?) Mdwh (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • While you do make an excellent point, to my way of thinking, pretty much everything that a large number of people search for should have an article, a stub (with plans for a future article), a redirect, or a link to Wictionary. I don't think it matters whether we thing the reason so many people are searching for that phrase is worthy or not. Volume of searches is justification enough. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But when we talk of people searching, we mean "Is someone looking for information on Wikipedia going to use this term", not that it's suddenly linked by a high profile site. This argument could mean high profile sites could get all sorts of more bizarre redirects created on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure that would be a good thing. Also given that the strip only recently appeared, and many people read XKCD as it comes out, I doubt the long term hit rate would be anywhere near that shown for the one day. Mdwh (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an argument for making the search term go somewhere non-crazy, not an argument for making the search term go to "not found." High-profile sites can already cause all sorts of bizarre terms to be entered in Wikipedia's search box. Making the term go to "not found" instead of somewhere sane does not change that basic fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "physics major" (or any other "x major") usually refers to a "Bachelor of Physics" (or Bachelor of X), do we have an article that covers that? 70.49.124.225 (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's true that :Physics major has never been visited before, but redirects are cheap. If the redirect exists, then curious people arrives to a well-researched article. If the redirect doesn't exist, they land on an "article doesn't exist" page, which can be discouraging. People will keep using this redirect, because forums over the internet will have linked it. I think that removing the redirect is just punitive, and we are not supposed to punish readers just because they arrive to an article via pop culture. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The spike is clearly not because people are searching for the topic in general, but because of the XKCD strip and checking out to see if it goes to Engineering. Since it doesn't, I don't see how an answer of "It doesn't" is any different for the XKCD searcher whether we link to Physics education, or don't have the redirect at all. And it seems unlikely that the level will remain that high. I don't see how anyone is "discouraged" or being "punished". I like reading XKCD myself - indeed that's how I found this discussion, as I knew that some jokers would try to mess with the redirect, just like someone does with every single strip. Should we add XKCD to a "Popular Culture" section for Wood, so as to not punish the XKCD readers? I mean, the same argument about XKCD readers coming to look at that section, only to find it doesn't exist, applies there too. Mdwh (talk) 09:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not a valid search term and merely exists to make a pop culture reference.—Ryulong (竜龙) 08:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not valid? Surely you mean "not frequently searched". But now the cat is out of the bag and it will be searched by people who find it in xkcd and in all the forums and blogs that reference the comic[1]. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A non-gibberish search should not return no result; we should point users in the right direction if we can. Besides, redirects are simple and inexpensive; as long as it's a little useful having it is a good idea. Most of the things XKCD has referenced now redirect to XKCD, but as this could conceivably be used by non XKCdians, I agree with the others that it should redirect to some physics-related article. Physicist would seem the most sensible, as physics majors are physicists. Knight of Truth (talk) 10:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's a plausible search term (thanks to xkcd, though it would still have been plausible without the comic) and the target is a suitable result for the search term. Hut 8.5 12:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move My only real issue with this redirect is that a Physics major doesn't really belong as a redirect to Physics education as this page covers very little on graduate/major level education. A better redirect would be to Physicist or a small stub page linking to both. Redirects as discussed earlier are largely free, and there will be plenty of traffic to this page, even from people googling for Physics Major, in which wikipedia does not currently feature a top10 result VibroAxe (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just because xkcd thought of something useful before we did isn't a reason to get butthurt here. "Physics Major" is a perfectly plausible search term for someone looking up encyclopedic info on...wait for it...majoring in physics. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per multiple above. Briefly, it's plausible, it's not harmful, we have many similar redirects (such as English major), redirects are cheap and salting the title would be overkill. Why it was created does not matter if it is now helpful (or at least not harmful). Rossami (talk) 16:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perfectly sensible search term with a logical target. It's not harming anything, so there is no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Physicist. Better choices would be making a page about physics majors, or a list of notable physics majors, but that's not feasible. Treedel (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it's now a quite-likely search term going forward, is consistent with other uses (such as (English major), and we've yet to exceed our redirect budget for the fiscal quarter so we can afford it. - Dravecky (talk) 23:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: At some point during this process, a user converted this title from a redirect into a standalone article, whose only content is a single sentence defining "physics major" as an academic major in physics and a "see also" link to physics education. Accordingly, since it's not a useful page for us to have in that form, I nominated the current version for AFD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics major) before I knew about this discussion. There's not much use in having two parallel discussions operating at cross purposes to each other, so I'd suggest consolidating them into one discussion happening at one place — but would it be preferable to close the AFD and point people here, or to close this discussion and point people to the AFD? (Given the title's current form as a standalone article, I think it makes more sense to keep the AFD going forward instead of this one, but I don't want to impose that without bringing it up for discussion first.) Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To other discussion I'm going to put my comments in the other discussion, as it seems more active. (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physics major)Ccrrccrr (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The page has been restored to a redirect and the AfD closed in favour of and without prejudice to this RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article or Salt. I explained my reasoning for this in detail in the AfD discussion, only to have the discussed closed, and the article deleted, with no response or rebuttal to my comments. I would appreciate hearing a rebuttal to them. Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, why is protection needed? I've not seen any suggestion that it would be required, and if it is this can be applied whether it is a redirect, article or blank page so it has no bearing on what the best of these options is.
      Secondly, what content could be at the title "Physics major" that is both encyclopaedic (rather than dictionaric) and not duplicative of content we have at another article? Your argument at the AfD would seem to be better answered by redirecting the title to Academic major (a target worth considering) rather than starting a new article.
      Finally, when a page is being discussed at an XfD then changing the form of that page (from a redirect to an article or vice versa) without getting consensus at that discussion is frequently interpreted as trying to bypass the discussion (whether that was the intention or not). The correct course of action would have been to propose here that it was converted into an article, optionally writing a draft version of the article somewhere (e.g. in your userspace). There is no point in having parallel discussions, and so one needed closing. As this RfD was the pre-existing, the page changed back to a redirect and the course of action recommended by the majority of AfD participants being a redirect, closing the AfD was the only logical option. Thryduulf (talk) 15:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've been a little slow to realize how offensive it seemed for me to make that edit while this discussion was ongoing. At the time I was completely unaware of it, as incredible as that seems. So as not to distract from the main discussion here, I explained how I made that mistake on my user talk page.Ccrrccrr (talk) 22:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per a talk page request, I affirm that I carefully read the comments at the AfD discussion and here. I had (and have) no change of opinion to that stated above. Rossami (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would probably help to, you know, move this comment to being nested below your original comment. (And feel free to delete my comment on the matter if and when you do.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by V2Blast (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge After reflecting and reviewing all the comments, I think the best solution for now is one that has been mentioned a few times: redirect to a specific section of physics education, and to edit that section to make it seems like less of a non-sequitur. The precedent of English major has been mentioned a few times. The article that redirects to actually contains a section titled "English major", which makes that more helpful and less confusing for someone on the receiving end of that redirect.
    Some of what I would highlight from my re-reading of the discussion:
    • I think there's a consensus that it's a valid search term, with or without xkcd, and so we should care at least a little about making it work right. "we should point users in the right direction if we can."
    • The keep argument is generally, (paraphrasing one comment from about) that arriving at a well researched article is better than nothing. Where I disagree with that is that the higher education section of the physics education article is not something I'd describe as being well researched.
    • Salting would take care of the possible vandalism problem--that's not a valid redirect argument. There was a vandalism problem on the day-of, but it may not continue.
    • I'm not the only one who argued for a stub, with the main purpose of the stub being to provide links to the various plausible redirect targets. This is not an established Wikipedia page type--it is not an article, as it does not contain encyclopedic content, it's not a disambiguation page, as it is useful even when there is only one meaning of the term in play, it's not a dictionary definition (as that's not its purpose). So it seems this is a new concept for which there is not established policy. This is probably not the time and place to consider whether such a new page type has a place in Wikipedia, but I might start at discussion on that if I can figure out where to do so.
    • I liked this argument for why we should do something other than or beyond leaving the redirect in place, which was in the AfD discussion:
"Please note that the Physics education article does not actually tell the reader what a physics major is. Neither does the Academic major article, unless you know the topic of physics. The Engineer article is however even less useful to someone looking up "physics major"." (from O8h7w)
Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/progress report I went ahead and edited the physics education section on US universities to make it an appropriate target. It seems like people have lost interest in this discussion, so I'm not sure how to figure out whether it would be presumptuous to proceed with editing the redirect to link there.Ccrrccrr (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plausible (though, prior to the comic, unlikely) search term that a reasonable target exists for. --Cybercobra (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to proceed with the change to [[Physics_education#Physics_education_in_American_universities. Any comments? Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2012 (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 war is lost

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, seemingly based on a quote in the BLP redirect target, "As long as we follow [President Bush's] path in Iraq, the war is lost." Rd232 talk 22:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. A variation of googlebombing. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an implausible redirect, apparently created to target a BLP via search engine manipulation. - Dravecky (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete makes no sense. I seem to recall something from classical history using something like this phrase. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 09:39, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - besides the whole BLP thing, the phrase has also been used in many other contexts (much more commonly/often in other contexts than relating to Reid, at that). --V2Blast (talk) 19:10, 14 May 2012 (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.

2010 Venezuelan self-coup

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. — ξxplicit 22:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page created as completely unexplained redirect to a BLP. Target doesn't clarify either. Rd232 talk 22:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • WP:BLP applies only weakly to public figures such as Hugo Chávez. (Private citizens have a much higher presumption of privacy than public figures.) I don't see BLP applying to this case.
    That said, the redirect certainly deserves evaluation. Self-coup describes a historically-recognized governmental maneuver. Venezuela is not currently on the list of examples of that maneuver but a search on "self-coup" in proximity to "Venezuela" returns an interesting number of quotes and accusations from opposition candidates and from independent political scientists. There is even this quote in which Chavez explicitly said that he decided not to stage a self-coup. The general concept of a redirect to Chavez does not seem unreasonable or pejorative given the context. None of the sources I found were specific to any event in 2010, however. Abstain for now. Rossami (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Based on Rossami's comments, I've done some looking too and not found anything. Venezuela parliamentary election 2010 is the closest thing in Category:2010 in Venezuela but only mentions Chávez in passing, and doesn't mention anything about coups (self or otherwise). I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Venezuela to see if anyone more familiar with the country can offer any recommendations. Thryduulf (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: a month on, and no progress. Fact is, if this were a standalone article, we'd want evidence that the topic is a really existing thing (and we wouldn't turn it into a redirect without such evidence, if it was real but failed notability). Creating things as redirects should not permit an end-run around WP:V. Rd232 talk 20:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Rd232 makes a good point. There is no evidence that there was a self coup in Venezuela in 2010 and nobody has found any article discussing (or indeed the existence of) any event in that year for which this would be a plausible search term. Thryduulf (talk) 09:17, 13 June 2012 (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.

I Wanna Be A Model/Malaysia's Next Top Model

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 no consensus. After well over a month available for discussion there is no consensus for deletion. Moves and/or conversion to disambiguation can be undertaken without prejudice. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever created this article before I, in my bumbling, got it turned into a redirect, thought these two shows are one and the same, but they're not (as they have separate articles, Malaysia's Next Top Model and I Wanna Be A Model), making this a confusing redirect.  Mbinebri  talk ← 20:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • disambig then, with a link to each show. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If these are two separate shows, a combined dab page doesn't make much sense. No use for such a redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 10:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This isn't the only redirect like this, I've added three others also created by the same user in 2007. There's been quite a lot going on with these redirects so it's a rather hard to figure out exactly what was moved where. But it looks like the page I Wanna Be A Model, was originally created in 2007 and moved around through these various titles, finally staying put at I Wanna Be A Model/Malaysia's Next Top Model where it has been for a number of years. Malaysia's Next Top Model was also, until last week, a redirect to I Wanna Be A Model when the nominator changed it into an article about a different show. I don't know the subject, and a google search really didn't illuminate me, but it seems this comes down to the question, is Malaysia's Next Top Model an ambiguous term? From my perspective it appears both shows can be referred to by that title. If this is the case, I would suggest leaving these four redirects in place, moving the current "Malaysia's Next Top Model" to Estee Lauder Model Search - Malaysia (or something else), and turning "Malaysia's Next Top Model" into a dab page. I wasn't able to find anything, but any official websites/ material for these shows would likely be a real help in determining what title these shows go by. France3470 (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Following France3470's comment, I've left a note a Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malaysia in the hope that someone there may be able to offer some more illumination on the topic. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2012 (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.

GOCE Hall of Fame

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 Speedy G7  Ronhjones  (Talk) 17:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a principle that the internal workings of Wikipedia should not be visible to casual readers - see WP:RFD#Reasons for deleting #6 and WP:Cross-namespace redirects#Arguments for deleting CNRs first bullet point (visitors should not fall into the pipework). There is a counter-argument lower down WP:CNR, but members of the Guild of copyeditors surely know their way around Wikipedia space and do not need redirects from mainspace. JohnCD (talk) 15:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The target is not a page that new users unfamiliar with namespaces need to be able to find, and it's very unlikely have any other benefits brought from a mainspace link. It was created as a redirect earlier this year, apparently to fix a redlink in a userbox (which no-longer uses this redirect as far as I can tell from the incomming links) so there is no history we need to preserve. Thryduulf (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2012 (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.

Missing articles

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. — ξxplicit 22:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused and unwanted cross-namespace redirect. Requested articles was deleted five years ago. How did this one survive? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#Reasons for deleting #6. JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The argument against cross-namespace redirects is weak at the best of times and especially weak when we're talking about core concepts that are specifically targetted to helping new editors. I see no potential for an actual encyclopedia article at this title nor any realistic chance that a reader is looking for anything other than the current target. Rossami (talk) 16:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. If there was a "missing articles" encyclopaedia article, or a redirect from there to an article, we would have no hesitation in adding a self-referential hatnote for the benefits of users. As there isn't, and we don't do {{Wiktionary redirect}}-style soft redirects to project space, then we are left with either a redirect or nothing. The question therefore is whether the benefit to the encyclopaedia by allowing as many people as possible to find the target is greater than the disbenefits from the potential confusion with an article. In this case the analysis comes down firmly on the side of having the redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To my way of thinking, whenever someone proposes a deletion on the basis of being cross namespace, it is worth taking a look at Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects and seeing which of the "for" and "against" arguments apply, how they should be weighted, and whether they are valid. Applying that test, I concluded that this is worth keeping. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. I doubt anyone's searching for "Missing articles" for any other reason, and I see no real harm to keeping the link. --V2Blast (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2012 (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.

Minecraft, Pacific Fleet

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. I have added a hatnote about Minecraft to the target article. JohnCD (talk) 14:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant redirect Devin (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a legitimate redirect which is mentioned in the target article. "Minecraft" in this sense refers to naval craft which have something to do with detecting or laying mines, it doesn't have anything to do with the game. Hut 8.5 12:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article that's redirected to describes "Commander, Minecraft, Pacific Fleet" as a former part of the US Navy command structure, and as such it's a relevant redirect. An incredibly obscure one, perhaps, but people do use it.[2] Knight of Truth (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with suggestion for a possible Alternative: How about a disambiguation page instead? Something like "Minecraft, Pacific Fleet refers to U.S. Navy type commands, a part of the US Navy command structure. Not to be confused with Minecraft, the game." Otherwise, keep - it's a legit if rarely used redirect. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts as to whether one actually reaches this redirect while looking for the game, so I'm not sure if your alternative proposal has much added value. In any case, it would be more appropriate to make a hat note rather than a disambiguation page. Knight of Truth (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2012 (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.

Steve Nichol

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. JohnCD (talk) 14:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion under criterion 10 as target merely mentions Nichols in band member list; he has been in other bands such as Eddie and the Hotrods & One the Juggler, and he doesn't have enough notability or info available for his own article. 94.116.10.167 (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Are we reading the same article? When I read the Loose Ends article, almost half of it was about Nichol. Unless he becomes more famous, this is where the redirect should go. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 12:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dondegroovily. If/when he becomes independently notable, an article can be overwritten on top of the redirect. Until then, this redirect at least points readers to an article that mentions him. (No objection to changing the redirect to one of the other bands if you think they are more significant or if they do a better job documenting his job history.) Rossami (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above - though I don't personally know if he's played a more prominent role in any of the other bands. If he has, he might be notable enough to deserve his own article... --V2Blast (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2012 (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/2012_May_7&oldid=1138578464"