Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 June 30

June 30
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 30, 2008

Jack Surtess → Jack Surtees
The result of the debate was Keep. Lenticel ( talk ) 06:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC) Page was wrongly created originally with the incorrect name Surtess. I've moved the article to Jack Surtees.Mick Knapton (talk) 21:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy Delete under criteria R3. So tagged.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep because it documents a recent pagemove. The redirect will point the original editors and readers to the new correct title for the page where their contributions will be appreciated.  (R3 can not be applied since it was the result of a pagemove, not initially created as a redirect.)  Rossami (talk) 03:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, good point (I misread the creation date). Keep for now, then, but this should probably be deleted eventually.  I don't see where R3 doesn't apply to pagemoves, but this wasn't recently created regardless.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The author made that mistake, others probably will too. It should saty for that rason.-- Serviam  (talk)  13:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ginormous → Neologism
The result of the debate was Soft Redirect. Lenticel ( talk ) 06:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ginormous is not a neologism (it is at least 60 years old according to the Oxford English Dictionary), and more importantly, the target article, neologism, doesn't discuss the word at all. Even worse, the redirect is protected, so note that I wasn't able to post the RfD notice there. If an admin could do it, I'd be thankful. Since this used to be an article that was deleted and re-created in the past (Articles for deletion/Ginormous), I imagine that the protection was meant to prevent re-creation. The intent is fine, but redirecting to an irrelevant article is not the solution. Please delete and salt, or turn it into a soft redirect to wiktionary and protect. Itub (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Soft redirect to ginormous as suggested above. The repeated placing of content there is evidence enough that we should have something. However, I don't believe we need to protect this; the evidence at hand is that that did more harm than good, since the change could have simply been made editorially otherwise. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I don't really care about the protection. I just suggested that to keep the status quo, but it is probably not necessary. --Itub (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect per Gavia imer. It is not mentioned in the target article at all. -- Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 15:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect Redirect was protected to prevent article creation, but a wi will point people to something useful (the definition). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary as a better way to prevent the recreation of the deleted content. Rossami (talk) 03:49, 1 July 2008

Broadway (Brooklyn) → Broadway (New York City)
The result of the debate was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 06:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The redirect confuses and misdirects visitors looking for information about Brooklyn's Broadway to an article about Manhattan's Broadway, a completely separate, unconnected street. Mosmof (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Convert to article Broadway in Brooklyn is notable enough for inclusion, it meets WikiProject U.S. Roads/Notability. Unfortunatly I don't know mucvh about it and wouldn't feel comfortable writing it myself.-- Serviam  (talk)  13:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking too, and I would've replaced the redirect with a stub myself, but I couldn't find much info after a quick Google search. --Mosmof (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for now, and post at WP:RA so that it may be recreated as a legitimate article when someone gets to the request. -- Mizu onna sango15 / Discuss 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously confusing as it is, and I can't find any references either, making it pretty hard to stubify. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)