Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 September 5

September 5
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 5, 2009

Ballets by designer
The result of the discussion was delete all. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC) These redirects were used to link catmore templates in the subcategories of Category:Ballets by designer. I have corrected the catmore links to point to the redirect targets, and there seems to be no use for these redirects anymore, as they are pretty unlikely search terms for readers to use. Jafeluv (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Kill all with fire per previous ballet redirect discussions over the past three weeks. There is no point to having any redirects of the form "Ballets designed by...", "Ballets composed by...", "Ballets performed by...", "Ballets presented by...", or "Ballets sponsored by..." at all when the person named after the "by" is the true search item. Nuke them all, and keep them from reproducing... again. B.Wind (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all Absolutely agree with B.Wind. It defeats the utility of having a redirect if the exact title of the target exists within the redirect.  The piped link exists to avoid having to create dozens of these inane redirects. ~ Amory ( user  •  talk  •  contribs ) 19:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all -- As per the nominator, previous discussion over the last few weeks, and per the other commenter above. And thanks to the nominator for doing the work to wrangle these in and get the situation under control! — m a k o  ๛  20:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Theatre redirects
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC) Delete. This redirect was used to link a catmore template in the similarly named category, which has now been fixed to point directly to Theatre. The redirect itself seems to serve no other purpose, and it's unlikely to be useful for readers. Jafeluv (talk) 12:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Theatre (links to redirect) (stats)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - this is a self-reference as the title has meaning only within the framework of Wikipedia. This is just about as bad as a cross-namespace redirect. B.Wind (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This seems to have been a mistake or a misunderstanding. Undoing that mistake is both correct and will cause no harm. — m a k o ๛  20:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)`

Lists of ballets by composer
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * → Ballet (music) (links to redirect) (stats)


 * → Ballet Jafeluv (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of a RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete both - while they might be worthwhile names for categories, they don't appear to be worthwhile (or likely) redirects for articles. B.Wind (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete redirects -- As per nominator and above. That said, someone should consider making articles or categories on these topics. — m a k o ๛  20:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Riben



 * 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 keep (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Japan (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Delete. Riben is a transliteration of the Chinese name for Japan. Chinese is not an official language of Japan and therefore this redirect makes no sense.  If we are to keep this, then why not redirect international names for all countries in every language to the articles for said countries?  The Sanskrit name for China is Cin, yet that does not redirect to China; the Hebrew name for India is Hodo, yet Hodo does not redirect to India; the Greek name for Persia is Persepolis, yet that does not redirect to Iran; the Russian name for Turkey is Turetska, but that does not redirect to Turkey, etc. GSMR (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, harmless. It is a bad idea to create redirects for everything in every language, but it is not necessary to delete all of those. — Kusma talk 09:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly Retarget to Chinese people in Japan as Rìběn huáqiáo has been. The argument that 'if we keep this one there will need to be thousands of others' is not, in my judgement, sound. We are dealing with the question as to whether there is a good reason to delete this redirect and keeping this one does produce a requirement to create others. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- If there is, in fact, a better target for this redirect, it should point there. As a search term though this sounds far from implausible so it should be kept around and Japan seems to be the most appropriate target to non-expert. — m a k o ๛  20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Kristin Maguire



 * 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 moot - redirect has been overwritten by a standalone article (non admin close). B.Wind (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell, this a redirect from the recently-resigned chairman of the State Board of Education of South Carolina to the governor of that state. The governor did appoint her to the position, however, his article doesn't mention her and I'm not sure if ever will. She left her political job after a recent scandal. Her position was not a cabinet level appointment. Those are the facts. It's a bit difficult to describe the situation in Wikipedia terms, but I don't think she's notable enough for an article at this point, and I don't think it's a particularly relevant redirect. Does all of this add up to deletion of the redirect being called for? I think so, but I admit I'm not sure. So hopefully we can figure out what to do here. Sancho Mandoval (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Mark Sanford (links to redirect) (stats)
 * Delete - it sounds like she may be notable enough to warrant her own article; however, until such an article is written, the absence of a mention of Maguire in Sanford's article makes the redirect inappropriate. --Zach425 talk / contribs 20:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I boldy took the initiative, did some research, and created start of an article on the subject. There's no more redirect anymore so I'm pretty sure this conversation can be closed. — m a k o ๛  21:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright then. I agree this discussion seems moot at this point. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)