Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 May 1

May 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 1, 2010

Space Ghost Coast to Coast: The Movie



 * 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 Delete -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 19:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * → Space Ghost Coast to Coast (links to redirect • [ history] • )

There is no Space Ghost Coast to Coast: The Movie. Section formerly in main article was quite properly removed. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 23:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - There is no SGC2C movie and the removed section that this directed to was WP:CRYSTAL. —Ost (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Misleading, there isn't a movie, Lord Spongefrog,   (I am Czar of all Russias!)  20:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate change in the United Kingdom



 * 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 No Consensus to delete. Discussions ended up based around deleting to encourage page creation, and keeping as its a useful navigational aid and a likely search term which doesn't prevent future recreation. As the page has history that may be usable to create a future article, the argument to delete it weakens further, thus there is no consensus here. -- Taelus  ( Talk ) 19:09, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * → Climate change (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete. I created this page to compliment all the other articles in Category:Climate change by country. Ever since its creation it has been contentious. It has been redirected to Category:Climate change in the United Kingdom and to climate change. A page on this topic should exist since it is a notable subject with clearly defined boundaries. However, if it is not going exist as an article and not allowed be redirected to Category:Climate change in the United Kingdom then it should not exist at all. The search string "Climate change in the United Kingdom" will send a reader to the climate change article. This is not the best option since there is a category about "Climate change in the United Kingdom".

Note that cross namespace redirects are controversial but it seems to be about redirects from content to project namespaces. In the absence of an article on topic surely a redirect to a category on the subject is the best option. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC) Withdraw as nominator. I have been mulling over this and it may be better to resurrect the page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 03:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Not necessary. No clear target and not a likely enough search term. An article can always be started at a future date should consensus require it. The couple of articles that actually link here can be better dealt with by sorting out the links than keeping this redirect. Polargeo (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - no mention of this topic in the current target, and redirecting to the mentioned category is not a desirable option (on the other hand, a link to the category can be made in the "See also" section of the current target article. In fact, it would be a good idea to have such links to the other similar categories). Keeping the redirect would be very misleading as it implies coverage in the target. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

With the nominator withdrawing it and the possibility of two editors reverting a consensus on the talk page, I feel this would be better with more input. ~ Amory ( u •  t  •  c ) 03:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * I'd say delete the redirect seeing as there is no coverage in the target article, and redirection from main to category space doesn't seem like a good path to send readers on. Should the nom wish to create a new article, deleting the misleading redirect in the mean time won't stop him. - Mobius Clock 14:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep a page that should be created, pages link there, low but steady usage, Is very likely to be a search item... Outback the koala (talk) 02:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep since I cannot withdraw my nomination. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)