Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 16

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

Famous authors and their autobiography/biographys



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was deleted under CSD R3: Recently created implausible redirect. --Taelus (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * → Road Dahl (links to redirect)

Sorry, but this is a real unlikely search term--and why it would redirect to Dahl is not clear to me. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like whoever created the page meant to make a wiki link instead of a redirect. Ferrantino (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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

List of extinct animals of the British Isles
The result of the discussion was keep. If somebody would like to make this into an article, I'm sure nobody would be upset, but there was consensus to keep the redirect for now. Killiondude (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * → List of extinct animals of Britain (links to redirect)

Delete This redirect incorrectly points to "List of extinct animals of Britain". The British Isles is a different area that just Britain, and the redirect is incorrect as it excludes Ireland. HighKing (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Keep and rename article correctly. Originally this article was called List of extinct animals of the British Isles. Then an anti-British Isles POV warrior managed to get it renamed, despite the fact that the article lists animals extinct from Ireland as well as other parts of the British Isles. This is yet another example of the drive to rid Wikipedia of British Isles at all costs, even if it means introducing inaccurate and downright incorrect information. LevenBoy (talk) 18:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion, perhaps this article should become a placeholder article which lists relevant articles. Although there is not an article listing the extinct animals of Ireland, it might encourage someone to create it.  --HighKing (talk) 01:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Article-ize - just remove what is still extant somewhere in the archipelago from the list for Great Britain (island). 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: If there were sources, the article would exist about the British Isles. The problem here is that the "redbook" for Britain solely deals with Britain, and nobody has looked at a similiar redbook for Ireland to create an article.  What you suggest is WP:OR - what needs to be done, really, is a similar article on Ireland.  If you're up to the task, I'll support you (I would, but I'm not an expert).  It's all very well knowing what to do, but it's another thing to find someone who will do it.  My concern is that the current redirect is wrong.  If nobody is prepared to make it right, it should simply be removed without bias on an editor recreating an article in the future.  --HighKing (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment it's easy to set up an incomplete list for the British Isles, that's not OR, just list animals known to be extinct everywhere in the world that are on the Great Britain list, and tag it with listdev. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 04:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep or Convert to disambig/article per suggestion by HighKing. It shouldn't be deleted as it is a plausible search term, and as it is a result of a page move deletion may break a number of external inbound links. It doesn't strike me as terribly misleading either. --Taelus (talk) 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree it's a plausible search term, but redirecting it just to point to Britain is wrong, as it omits Ireland. As I've point out above, the redirect should be deleted without prejuduce to an editor recreating an article in the future.  Just because it's a valid search term doesn't mean we should have to put up with an incorrect redirect... --HighKing (talk) 13:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep as the redirect was created as a result of article moves. WP:REF recommends that we keep redirects with plausible/"useful" search terms even if they are technically incorrect or POV as long as they are not inflammatory/harmful to Wikipedia. I see no such harm in this case. It is easy to forget that redirects are there for the help of the reader, not the editor. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)