Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 16

February 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 16, 2009

It Takes Three → 3
The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 02:14, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Nothing relevant on the 3 article, or on 3 (number) or 3 (disambiguation) — Snigbrook 22:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - no reason to have this pointing to an article which is only tangentially relevant.  Richard 0612  12:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Perhaps the idiom means something special to the original editor, but its usage in English is pretty general. Delete for lack of meaning. --Bejnar (talk) 06:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not related to target  fr33k man   -s-  05:48, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * weak retarget to Hutchison 3G as I seem to vaguely remember it being one of their advertising slogans, but it is probably too general to be particularly notable. PaulJones (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no viable redirect target since the Mary Kate & Ashley song of that name does not have an article, nor is it mentioned in any article about the act. B.Wind (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nicholas Roerich → Nicholas Roerich
The result of the discussion was Delete. Lenticel ( talk ) 02:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Unnecessary redirect to article space from project space. (Note: CSD R3 doesn't apply here, as the page wasn't recently created). Unscented (talk) 21:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - no obvious reason for this. Robofish (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as accidental creation. I recently CSD'd a page exactly like this that had been around since 2007 (Extravagance --> User:Extravagance) (see: log) and it was accepted as a SD and deleted  fr33k man   -s-  05:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

List of → Portal:Contents/Lists of topics
The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Completing nomination process started by another editor. Cross namespace redirect that is too vague to be useful as a search item (note the multitude of list articles that Wikipedia has, for example). 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Weak delete - this is the rare cross-namespace redirect I can see actually being useful... but still, it's a cross-namespace redirect. Maybe retarget to List? Robofish (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Freiburger → Freisamer
The result of the discussion was no longer applicable as redirect has been overwritten with a dab page. (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC) delete or create page for several meanings of the word. I followed a link from Anti-Germans_(communist_current) and ended up on a page about grapes which is wrong from the contex 77.163.89.87 (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * I've fixed the link ("Freiburger" refers to Freiburg im Breisgau), maybe a disambiguation page should be created as there is also a football club Freiburger FC, and two articles about people with the surname Freiburger. — Snigbrook 16:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've turned it into a disambiguation page. Keep, in its current form - there's no obvious main target for this term. Robofish (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy close - redirect has been converted into a dab page. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Scottish Wikipedians' notice board → Wikipedia:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board
The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Cross-namespace redirect –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  16:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - not useful and against policy. Robofish (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as against policy. It probable is useful. --Bejnar (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - I rate practicality over bureaucracy.--MacRusgail (talk) 20:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of bureaucracy, really. This redirect blatantly violates policy. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Speedily. Filper01  ( Chat,  My contribs ) 05:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly against policy --Rogerb67 (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Windows NT 7 → Windows 7
Windows NT 7.0 → Windows NT 6.1 The result of the discussion was no consensus to delete. The discussion as to whether a retargeting is the preferable option should continue on the discussion page of the talk page of each of these redirects. While there seemed to be movement toward a retargeting, I saw no such consensus... yet. (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 05:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC) These are implausible misnomers. [The targets are different, yet they are listed together. This is because only one was updated, yet the reason for updating applied to them both (that reason is that it is better to redirect to the disambiguation page Windows NT 6.1, which lists Windows 7).]

I say that these are implausible because anyone who's going to enter "Windows NT" while searching for these versions of Windows obviously has some idea what they're talking about, and hence they should know that the version number is actually 6.1.

These redirects are not really "recent", and at least one of them might be construed as having a "useful" edit history, so I did not nominate them for speedy deletion (I was initially going to). Brian Jason Drake 11:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC) [updated Brian Jason Drake 11:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)]


 * Delete (nom) Brian Jason Drake 11:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Those pages were probably created when most people thought the next release in the Windows NT line would actually be version 7.0. Now that we know it's not, it should be OK to Delete them. If not, at least redirect both to Windows NT 6.1 for now. --Samvscat (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep plausible since the next windows is "Windows 7" . Even if it is 6.1, when the real NT7 platform comes, they can be converted to dabs. 76.66.196.229 (talk) 06:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How is it plausible? How could anyone possibly think of this, unless they were thinking of Windows 7, in which case they could just search for "Windows 7" (see comment below)? Brian Jason Drake 12:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When we first heard the codename "Windows 7," I think most of us assumed it would end up as Windows NT 7.0 (only Microsoft would come up with a way for that not to happen). That's probably why those redirects exist in the first place. But now we know Windows NT 7.0 doesn't exist at all. At least not yet. It may never exist, for all we know. --Samvscat (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I found these redirects by looking at a list of articles whose titles begin with "Windows NT". Brian Jason Drake 12:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually found the "Windows NT 7.0" redirect because I was checking to see if someone had erroneously reported that Windows 7 = Windows NT 7.0. So, I already knew there was no such thing as Windows NT 7.0. --Samvscat (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment It is understandable how people could have thought previously that Windows 7 would be Windows NT 7, but there was never any basis that I can see for the name "Windows NT 7.0". Brian Jason Drake 11:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, change the targets if you think it would be an improvement. --Rumping (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why (there are reasons above, but what is your reason)? Brian Jason Drake 08:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What target(s) do you suggest, and what changes (if any) should be made to the target(s) to make it clear where the name "Windows NT 7"/"Windows NT 7.0" comes from? Certainly some clarification is in order if we redirect to Windows NT 6.1, I think. Brian Jason Drake 08:30, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment We should never redirect straight to "Windows 7," because it's not true; it would support the misunderstanding. If we can't redirect straight to "Windows NT 6.1" without further explanation, then we should just delete them entirely, because we shouldn't legitimize something that doesn't exist. As of yet, Windows NT 7.0 doesn't exist, period, in release or developmental stages. --Samvscat (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)