Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 5

November 5

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 5, 2013.

Template:Petula Clark discography (United States)

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. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlikely that any one will look at this name. At present, a template-redirect, created by page move, to Template:Petula Clark. The Banner talk 16:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Not especially useful, but I don't see any of WP:RFD#DELETE really applying except perhaps #8, and for me the fact that it's a former name balances this out. I won't shed any tears if this is deleted, but neither do I think that it's a very good idea to do so. --BDD (talk) 00:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I think that BDD describes the dilemma well. However I presume that, after the change of name, the template now covers non-US releases. Therefore, the redirect is misleading to the reader and this tips it for me. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2013 (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.

バスケットボール

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. --BDD (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese is not integrally important to these topics. Gorobay (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all - no specific Japanese connection.The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; previous consensus is that such redirects are not needed. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2013 (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.

Xiamen-Shenzhou Railway

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 14#Xiamen-Shenzhou Railway

Gait redirects

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 four. Two nominations were withdrawn. WJBscribe (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of these subjects have been discussed in the target article for nearly three years, since a large amount of content was removed as unreferenced in November 2010, and thus all are potentially confusing. Some have several incoming links, which indicates that those may have potential for an article, in which case WP:RFD#DELETE #10 applies as well. jcgoble3 (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I redirected Skipping to the disambiguation page at Skip, so it's no longer a problem. - Eureka Lott 16:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have retargeted Tiger crawl to Crawling (human)#Tiger crawl. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Both are withdrawn, though I'm going to tag Skipping as a {{R with possibilities}}, as it has several incoming links and is a valid article topic with a metric crapload of Google Books hits for "skipping gait". jcgoble3 (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what happened here was that large chunks unsourced content were deleted. This was, of course, permissible but better in my view would have been to tag for sources particularly since some of the terms are easily sourced eg [1]. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:33, 12 November 2013 (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.

Current events redirects

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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of these subjects have any article or portal listing current events for these places. Unless some relevant target can be found, I would say to delete all. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason not to soft retarget to Wikinews? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cross-wiki redirects in article space are never a good idea in my opinion - they're confusing to readers. Readers (and editors) expect to find articles in mainspace, not an advert for a Wikimedia sister site. And as a red link they have a link to Wikinews anyway! Wikipedia doesn't have information on the topic so therefore these shouldn't be in article space. 5.70.64.235 (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --BDD (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2013 (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.

Why wikipedia is great

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. Even with the new proposal to retarget to another title, it seems like consensus is to not have the original redirect, or the cross-namespace redirect. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 03:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not neutral and nothing in the target article explains "why Wikipedia is great". This was originally a CNR but that will obviously not do. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We do not want to encourage CNRs. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 19:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great. Taylor's correct, normally we don't want CNR's because (as WP:CNR says) "they result in a person (reader) walking around a building (encyclopedia) and falling into the pipework (project space) because the builders (editors) thought cracks in the walls and floors would be useful for them to get around.". In this case tough, that page is for readers as well, and not just editors, so that's a reason to keep/retarget this. The proposed target, while not part of the encyclopedia per sy, is part of the building (area meant for readers), not part of the pipework (area meant only for editors). Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:57, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What exactly does it say about us if we would delete Why wikipedia is stupid (RfD) but keep this? I'm also strongly opposed to redirecting this to the W-space essay. Sadly, Wikipedians tend to throw neutrality out the window when we start discussing Wikipedia. This is borderline G11 territory here, but we may end up keeping it just because it deals with us and how great we are. WP:NPOV indeed. --BDD (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm concerned that this is going to be closed as no conciseness and remain a redirect to Wikipedia, a result no one wants. How about a compromise: we retarget this to Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great, but relist this RFD and then focus this discussion on weather we want to keep or delete the new XNR (scene no one wants this as a redirect to Wikipedia). Any objections? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 03:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the absence of any objections, I'm relisting and retargeting this to Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great per my above comment. We have consensus that this should not be a redirect to Wikipedia; do we want to keep this as a redirect to Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is so great (or some other target)? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per BDD. Siuenti (talk) 11:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I also agree with BDD. Self-referential and contrary to NPOV. WJBscribe (talk) 14:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no overriding reason to create a CNR. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think The Whispering Wind has already !voted on this one. Siuenti (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he's just confirming his opinion that the redirect should be deleted even though it has been retargeted. WJBscribe (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2013 (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.

Islamic Council in Germany

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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted because it points to another organisation. It would be preferable to see red links making it obvious that an important article is missing here. PanchoS (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2013 (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/2013_November_5&oldid=1138579217"