Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 2

August 2
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 2, 2009

Atlantic Records discography
The result of the discussion was Not applicable as returned to article. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC) There is no such discography, and judging from Articles for deletion/Sony BMG discography, making entire discographies for a record label is not a good idea. This seems too far of a stretch for a search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Atlantic Records (links to redirect)
 * delete per nom. If it doesn't exist, then it shouldn't exist here.  --Bsay USD  CSU [ π ]  22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as misleading (and this would not be a worthwhile Wikipedia article as Atlantic Records has been in existence for about six decades). Not even the company maintains a complete discography, and anything hinting at one on Wikipedia is not a desirable option.B.Wind (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was just made a redirect by the nominator 14 hours before nominating. Before redirecting, there was an article there that already survived an AfD a month ago. I'd say RfD is not the best place to discuss this article. Jafeluv (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Also see Category:Discographies by record label for similar articles. Jafeluv (talk) 08:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It is very unfair to convert to a redirect against previous concensus and prior to any subsequent discussion of this nomination. That being said, this is very good example of what is better handled by a CATEGORY rather than an extremely large incomplete list. It does appear to be very subjective. If you wish to list by date, you can divide the category into the 60s, 70s, 80s, etc. If you believe the list is worthwhile, doing the work to amend the category would result in a more complete self maintaining listing. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. This has been taken to AFD twice in the past year by the nominator and both times this has been kept. Redirecting the article then bringing it here is nothing short of disruptive.--Michig (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete really not a good idea as a redirect or as an article. Agreeing with nom. Tavix |  Talk 01:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Agree with Michig completely. Survived two AfDs and was redirected by the nominator just to be brought here. Completely unacceptable in my eyes. —  Σ  xplicit 03:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Michig. Disruptive and anti-collaborative behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per previous consensus. It's a big task to maintain, should one accept it, but there doesn't seem to be a valid reason to delete it. --Wolfer68 (talk) 23:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Take it to AfD That is the proper place for this. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Archaeological Site of Great Importance
The result of the discussion was Kept. Jafeluv's suggestion not implemented as the redirect is singular "Site" where the proper name is plural "Sites" per the target. It should not be at the singular form. If someone wants to move it to the plural form without the "(Serbia)", feel free. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Mistakenly nominated for deletion at Articles for deletion/Archaeological Site of Great Importance. The nominator's comment and the single response were as follows:
 * → Archaeological Sites of Great Importance (Serbia) (links to redirect)
 * This redirect appears to be unnecessary as if other artciles are created with titles such as Archaeological Site of Great Importance (USA) there is great potential for confusion. Originally prodded, but I was informed that that is not appropriate for a redirect. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Possible R3 speedy delete as a misnomer redirect. Hairhorn (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

My own opinion is Keep, since according to the article this term is an official designation in Serbia (not just a subjective descriptive claim). If the same term comes into use elsewhere, the redirect can easily be changed into a disambiguation page. EALacey (talk) 06:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for moving this. I was unaware of this procedure. I am not convinced about the necessity of this redirect however as the term when searched for in Google produces lists of sites in many countries . Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete as a technical deletion and move the target article back to Archaeological Site of Great Importance. The "(Serbia)" disambiguator is an unnecessary one because there's no other Archaeological Site of Great Importance article. On the other hand, though, the term doesn't seem to have much use outside Wikipedia. My guess is it's an original translation of the Serbian name. If there's a common English name for these sites, I would support moving the article to another title. Jafeluv (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Beautiful Rushmore Cave
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC) A POV title. Gordonrox24 ''' &#124; Talk 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Rushmore Cave (links to redirect)
 * delete - that's the kind of thing you see on billboards, not a wiki. Does not aid in search since most people would likely just put "rushmore cave"  --Bsay USD  CSU [ π ]  22:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unlikely search term. The content was copy-pasted to Rushmore Cave after before this article was redirected, but there may not be a need for a history merge since there's only one author and they're the one who copy-pasted the content in the first place. Jafeluv (talk) 12:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV, and an unlikely search term. There is little reason to have redirects that include descriptive terms in them. --Taelus (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dipset Ike
The result of the discussion was Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 21:34, 9 August 2009 (UTC) Unlikely search term. Juelz Santana has never gone by "Dipset Ike" and Google brings up nothing affiliated with him. —  Σ  xplicit 00:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Juelz Santana (links to redirect)
 * Delete, cannot find any link between the redirect and the target. --Taelus (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)