Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 February 19

February 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion on February 19, 2008

Tom MacDonald (author) → Tom MacDonald (writer)
The result of the debate was kept. John Reaves 18:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC) I made this a redirect when two identical articles were produced - the original author now requests deletion, and it's unlikely to be searched for. — Tivedshambo (t 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination.  Please do not modify it.
 * Keep. This does seem like a reasonable alternate searching and linking term, actually, and I'm not sure what we'd gain by deleting it. Having said that, if neither the nominator nor the original creator (User:Lepidus Magnus) wants to keep the history prior to redirection, it looks like it would be fine to delete that. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the current article contains material which was first introduced in the thing which is now a redirect, we have to keep this redirect for its history, for copyright reasons. Noel (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment As I recall, the additions I introduced into (author) I also added into (writer), and the same goes for User:Lepidus Magnus's contribution of the original article. The only other contribution was the rejected speedy nomination, which hardly counts as a significant contribution. I'm not bothered about keeping the history as far as my own contribution to this article goes, and presumably Lepidus isn't either. I would have tagged this as WP:CSD (author requests deletion), but I don't think it applies to two authors, even when both request it. On the other hand, redirects are cheap so I'm not really bothered either way. —  Tivedshambo  (t 22:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

muscle fiber → skeletal muscle
The result of the debate was redirected. John Reaves 18:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC) The muscle fiber page is actually referring to "muscle fiber types" and is horribly outdated. The skeletal muscle page contains a sub-section on muscle fiber types that is updated and contains all relevant information to this topic. Smr1 (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is absolutely true - I always wondered why it was so unkempt, when such information was already neatly organized in the skeletal muscle page.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Femnudist → Amateur pornography
The result of the debate was deleted. John Reaves 18:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC) one of many redirects made by User:Citybest that I question the point of.  Enigma  msg! 19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

EGAFD → Amateur pornography
The result of the debate was deleted. John Reaves 18:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC) one of many redirects made by User:Citybest that I question the point of.  Enigma  msg! 19:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'