Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 11

October 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 11, 2009

Charles Boartz
The result of the discussion was Delete. Ruslik_ Zero 19:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → Jamie Leigh Jones (links to redirect)

No mention of Charles Boartz in Jamie Leigh Jones. We shouldn't redirect the name of the accused to the article on a crime victim. Apoc2400 (talk) 23:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Tough call. If there were sufficient detail in KBR (company) I'd recommend retargeting to it, but the best potential target, Jones, et al. v. Halliburton Company et al., is not a Wikipedia article; so, unfortunately, deletion would be best... at least for now. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Allegations of Soviet influence in Western peace movements
The result of the discussion was Delete. Unencyclopedic redirect. Ruslik_ Zero 19:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → Soviet influence on peace movement (links to redirect)

While there is still some discussion on article's talk about proper name, the "allegations" name is not supported by majority of discussants, it is quite weaseling, encyclopedic and unlikely to be ever typed in by anybody - whether on wikipedia or on google. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep. Several internal links to the redirect title, and an unknown number of existing links might use that title.  Powers T 21:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fix the internal links. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apologies; for clarity, I was referring to links from elsewhere on the Internet. We should try to avoid breaking hyperlinks whenever possible.  Powers T 12:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Shea
The result of the discussion was Retarget to the dab page. Ruslik_ Zero 19:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * → Butyrospermum parkii (links to redirect)

Retarget to Shea (disambiguation). In my opinion, there is no clear primary topic for this word. Powers T 13:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Retargeted to Shea (disambiguation), although a strong case for Shea Stadium could be made here as a primary topic.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're free to try to make such a case, but currently I disagree. Anyway, I would rather you hadn't retargeted the redirect while the discussion was still ongoing.  Powers T 17:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, first thing I thought of was Shea butter. User:Nezzadar (speak) 05:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Although my first thought was also Shea butter, I'm inclined to agree that there's not a clear primary topic here. I think retargeting to the disambiguation page is the right thing to do. Scog (talk) 07:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, my first thought was to Shea Stadium, but that's the baseball fan in me. All that shows is that Shea (disambiguation) is the appropriate target. Keep as retargeted. B.Wind (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep retarget The old stadium may be a semi-valid argument, but its about to be used a whole lot less these days. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 00:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete but retarget to the disam page. To anyone in the US,    Shea means primarily the stadium. Since we're not exclusively a US  encyclopedia, the link should go to the disam p. which will serve everyone.    DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why delete? Powers T 19:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Child's Play (2009)
The result of the discussion was delete. RfD was up for the standard week and uncontested. I didn't see in the instructions that this meant it could safely be deleted. Sorry for this non-standard relist and non-standard close. Killiondude (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Recommend both for deletion (particularly the former) as the possibility of a remake/sequel is still in rumor stage, and related material/section has consistently been removed from target article. While the latter redirect may someday be valid, the former will not, as at this point a 2009 release of an as yet unplanned film is rather unlikely. ToET 09:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC) 
 * → Child's Play (film series) (links to redirect)
 * → Child's Play (film series) (links to redirect) 

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Huh? WP:RFD item3: The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete. Thus, a redirect nominated in good faith and in accordance with RfD policy will be deleted, even if there is no discussion surrounding that nomination. I'm not trying to slip anything by here, I just assumed that they were uncontroversial. -- ToET 08:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, hold on a second I see that there is a new Child's Play (film series) section, which means I will probably withdraw, but should still probably go.  I'll get back to you. -- ToET 08:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * False alarm. It was just another unsourced section presumably based on couple year old rumors, and was subsequently deleted.  Let's just delete both and be done with it, although if you really want this nomination to gather dust for another week, it won't trouble me. -- ToET 10:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Comment The Child's Play (2009) is clearly unneeded – if there were such a beast, we'd know about it by now. I'm less sure about Child's Play (Remake).  Plans of a remake have been announced more than once, so if we can keep the info regarding it verifiable (instead of getting carried away), I don't see the harm.  --Dominic Hardstaff (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good (and I see that we have a targetable section back, this time thin but sourced.) So,  withdrawn by nominator, but  still strongly recommended for deletion (whenever). -- ToET 11:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * ToE: Before I relisted this, I looked (albeit quickly) to see if RfD was the same as FFD when it came to uncontested nominations for deletion, and I didn't see anything. It was quite late, and I was trying to deal with some of the backlog of unclosed threads on this page. Killiondude (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries, dude. Thank you for rescuing us from that backlog. -- ToET 10:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)