Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 April 14

April 14
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 14, 2008

template:Chinese Emperor 6 → template:Qing namebox
The result of the debate was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC) no longer used, related Chinese Emperor 0 to 7 have been deleted, leaving only Chinese Emperor and Qing namebox 70.55.85.225 (talk) 05:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. Agreed with nomination. John Smith&#39;s (talk) 06:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nomination --Liempt (talk) 02:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Relevant discussion at the RfD for 1-5 and 7 here: Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 28. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Intec Systems → Symantec
The result of the debate was Not applicable as has been converted to article. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC) Symantec has acquired Intec Systems, but it may have had a history prior to that. The Symantec article doesn't mention Intec with a single word so anyone trying to find something about Intec won't find it. This has been done probably to remove red links from the List of Symantec acquisitions. This is, imo, not a good reason for a lousy redirect. RfD should apply to other company names mentioned in the List of Symantec acquisitions without their own article at least if they're not even mentioned in the Symantec page. --Sigmundur (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to List of Symantec acquisitions until we could craft an article about it or mention it in greater detail in a better article.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 08:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Close discussion as Intec Systems is not a redirect article as of April 15, but a very short (two sentence) "stub article". Its desirability is open to debate, but this is not the proper forum for such a discussion (AfD is). B.Wind (talk) 04:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per B.Wind; nom is probably right about the article, but no need to delete, be bold. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)