Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 14

List of people ... Tychy
The result of the discussion was delete all. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Delete User appears to have had a brainstorm and got through several names for the article in just over 5 minutes : see. Article now merged back into the Tychy article it came from. None of the redirs are used. Bazj (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Tychy (links to redirect)
 * → Tychy (links to redirect)
 * → Tychy (links to redirect)
 * → Tychy (links to redirect)
 * Delete, obvious. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the reason I disassociated this article from Tychy is simply because it's incredibly un-encyclopedic to give what amounts to an arbitrary list of people born in a city unless they hold particular historical or cultural significance for the development of that city itself. The change in the title of the article reflects only my commitment to making things as readable as possible. --Fliptank po (talk) 10:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment: List of people from Tychy must not be deleted. Material from there was merged into the main article & thus in order to comply with our licensing agreement, a redirect must remain.  The rest can be deleted. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems I have be mistaken. See User_talk:Bazj; evidently Fliptank broke the material off from the main article without proper attribution to begin with, and thus merging it back didn't actually break attribution since that is where the original contributors are credits anyway. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Britney Spears's fifth studio album
The result of the discussion was delete. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → Blackout (Britney Spears album) (links to redirect)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Circus (Britney Spears album) Wolfer68 (talk) 16:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Glider types
The result of the discussion was keep as reasonable search terms with potential. ~ mazca  talk 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 14, 2009
 * → Glasflügel
 * → Glasflügel
 * → Glasflügel
 * → Glasflügel
 * → Glasflügel
 * → Glasflügel Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   09:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Remove self-redirects in the article, but keep the redirects. The model names are plausible search terms.  [  mad   pierrot  ]  14:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How do I remove a self re-direct? By actually deleting the link in the article? Most of these names are the correct name of the type, I think the last one is a mis-spelling and could be redirected to its correct spelling (which would be a red link). Excuse my ignorance! Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)   16:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it means removing links that will eventually point into the original article. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep redirects for the time being as I am removing all circular links from the target article. Should the individual models merit (and get) standalone articles, they can be relinked. Deleting the set of redirects to form redlinks would be, in this case, far less preferable. B.Wind (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Argentina–Suriname relations
The result of the discussion was keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC) delete redirecting to List of diplomatic missions of Argentina is inappropriate redirect for a bilateral article. LibStar (talk) 02:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → List of diplomatic missions of Argentina (links to redirect)
 * Delete per nom. There was massive AfD of "X-Y relations" articles and someone took the easy way. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep this was a comprimise which the nominator refused to abide by, continuing to delete hundreds of articles. See Deletion_of_Bilateral relation pages despite_ongoing merging_effort. Where is the policy beyond nominators opinion? Ikip (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of attacking the nominator, why not provide a link to where the compromise was established? pablo hablo. 14:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Refactored. Ikip (talk) 20:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Revert the redirect Any two countries on the same contient will have notable relations. Do we have a rule against doing that while the discussion is proceeding, or is it possible to close in that manner? Or is the way of handling this situation to keep the redirect, and then subsequently revert? This series of redirects was a sensible effort by Ikip and others to try to provide  some time for working on the articles, and was a reasonable compromise.  But it's time to work on this one.   DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Any two countries on the same continent will have notable relations. this is absolutely not true and an invented criterion. many European bilateral pairings have been deleted. LibStar (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but some keep deleting these articles anyway. So a redirect is better than nothing, since those looking for the information, will be forwarded to a place that has it.   D r e a m Focus  17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy close Nominators only problem with this redirect seems to be that these articles were redirected to List of diplomatic missions, not Foreign relations of... A quick message to me would have avoided this entire RFD, and the subsequent ANI and WT:AFD. Ikip (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I oppose speedy close, it still should be discussed if this redirect is valid. LibStar (talk) 01:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - potentially useful redirect and no valid deletion reason has been adduced. TerriersFan (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Argentina–Hungary relations
The result of the discussion was keep. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC) delete redirecting to List of diplomatic missions of Argentina is inappropriate redirect for a bilateral article. LibStar (talk) 06:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * → List of diplomatic missions of Argentina (links to redirect)
 * Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep this was a comprimise which the nominator refused to abide by, continuing to delete hundreds of articles. See Deletion_of_Bilateral relation pages despite_ongoing merging_effort. Where is the policy beyond nominators opinion? Ikip (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of attacking the nominator, why not provide a link to where the compromise was established? pablo hablo. 14:09, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Refactored. Ikip (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep for now as the best solution to this one. The article will presumably be worked on eventually and undoubtedly sent to AfD, and most likely kept. This series of redirects was a sensible effort by Ikip and others to try to provide  some time for working on the articles, and is a reasonable compromise.   DGG ( talk ) 17:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I see no reason not to have a redirect there. Why does the nominator feel it is inappropriet?  Those who read other bilaterial topics, might search for a relationship between two countries they are interested in, and it best to be redirected if not enough material to fill its own article right now.  Is there any possible harm in this particular redirect remaining?  It won't mess up any search results, which is the only real reason to delete a redirect.   D r e a m Focus  17:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close Nominators only problem with this redirect seems to be that these articles were redirected to List of diplomatic missions, not Foreign relations of... A quick message to me would have avoided this entire RFD, and the subsequent ANI and AFD. Ikip (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * you could have discussed it with me prior to raising the ANI. LibStar (talk) 01:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - potentially useful redirect and no valid deletion reason has been adduced. TerriersFan (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)