Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 13

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) 01:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Bridgefield → Dyce (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Delete. Bridgefield is not mentioned in the target article, and shouldn't be. It was created as an article about a "village" - actually 1 or 2 houses - and was redirected; it's in the Dyce postcode area but is actually in Old Machar. This is probably not the same Bridgefield as mentioned in List of listed buildings in Old Machar, Aberdeen. Peter James (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Bridge Field -- 76.65.131.217 (talk) 04:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that Bridge Field is ever referred to as Bridgefield (or that it exists at all). Peter James (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And confusingly, Bridge Field has been moved to Langrigg, with nary a mention of a bridge. I suppose this is a Cumbric/English issue. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Certainly this seems to exist as a neighbourhood in Aberdeen - [1][2]. However, since it is a somewhat ambiguous name we need an article to redirect to. If this place is not in Dyce but in Old Machar then deletion, at least until a page on Old Machar is written, seems the only option. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:50, 26 October 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.

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) 15:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• WhiteSmoke (Virus) → Norton AntiVirus (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect has nothing to do, simply put, with Norton. A Google search of WhiteSmoke does not support this association. Jasper Deng (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there has never been anything about this virus at the target so it is misleading. Also I can't find a sensible alternative target. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:27, 13 October 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.

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 Refine target to Wikipedia community#Media. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia Signpost → Wikipedia community (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

I would like to discuss this problematic redirect. Please see User talk:J Milburn#Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost for prior discussion. IMO, the redirects that J Milburn prefers are problematic, because they don't lead someone who searches for "Wikipedia Signpost" to a page about the Wikipedia Signpost. The problem is that he is correct in saying that the version that existed before he made his change is also problematic -- I agree with his reasons for wanting to change it, but not his choice as to what to change it to. Alas, I don't have anything better. Should we just put up with a problematic redirect? And if so, which one? Do we create a stub target in the article namespace? Do we just delete the redirect? I really don't know what is best here. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If this redirect needs to be deleted, then so be it; my only concern is that this does not redirect to a Wikipedia page, as such a thing is against the spirit of avoiding self references and contrary to our redirection policy. As it happens, I think it's a potentially moderately useful redirect to a page on the Wikipedia community, which may be expanded with further details on the Signpost if any reliable sources turn up. I note that Google Scholar does have a few hits, but there's not enough commentary/analysis to justify an independent article, unless I've missed something. J Milburn (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I also looked into the notability of WS, and I agree; there isn't enough there to justify an article, and as I said above, I agree with your reasoning about not having the cross-wiki redirect. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:02, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but should go to the "Media" section of the article. I've added a {{Selfref}} link (at the top of the article, for now). Peter James (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Refine target to Wikipedia community#Media where there is relevant information. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:09, 13 October 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.