Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 November 12

Silver (coin) → Silver
The result of the debate was Re-targeted to Silver coin. -- JLaTondre 01:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Nonsensical title. Silver is a chemical element. The word "coin" doesn't make much sense to re-direct here. Georgia guy 15:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment they may have meant silver pieces like are found in fantasy settings(typically games). In all honesty, that point might deserve some discussion in the silver article. i kan reed 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Silver coin A review of the see also section of Silver turned that up. Seems like a reasonable target.  i kan reed 19:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Silver coin per Ikanreed. &mdash;ScouterSig 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder → Wikinfo
The result of the debate was Kept. The redirect can always be converted to an article if notability and sourcing is sufficient. In the meantime, WJBscribe argument summarizes why it should be kept & not deleted. -- JLaTondre 23:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC) Extremely unhelpful redirect, that redirect should mention birth date, life, etc. but it links to Wikinfo, just something he made. &mdash; Coasterge ekperson 04 ' s talk  01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the redirect was put here after the page was deleted for being a "non-notable biography". I guess I'd rather have the redirect than to resume the arguments about the biography.  That's a pretty weak reason, though.  And the debate over the biography was closed over a year ago.  Rossami (talk) 05:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps time for someone to recreate the biography. DGG (talk) 23:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Although notability is required, I think that WP:COI is more important. It counts that It should be there as long as people are interested. If they aren't, that violates WP:COI, in the matter than no one wants to read the article and it is useless. But I'm interested in reading the biography. &mdash; Coasterge ekperson 04 ' s talk  01:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as target mentions Bauder. Redirecting the names of founders to their organisations/websites is fairly standard where they aren't notable enough (or there isn't enough material) for a bio about them. Doesn't seem that there is any other Fred Bauder people might be looking for info about. WjBscribe 12:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rearward motion → Turning in the road
The result of the debate was delete. WjBscribe 01:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I can make no heads or tails of how this might be considered an appropriate redirect. My first instinct when thinking bout rearward motion would be reverse, but even that seems like an unnecessary redirect. If this term is used in some English speaking regions I'm unfamiliar with, I'll withdraw my nomination. i kan reed 06:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. I can find no plausible connection between the redirect and the target topic.  The redirect was only in use in one article (and I just removed that one because it was inappropriate to the context).  Rossami (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)