Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 12

October 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 12, 2010

Darth Mandelson



 * 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.  Frank  |  talk  16:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Peter Mandelson (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Seems a bit undue and attack like Off2riorob (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - as confusing. Not mentioned in the article nor any indication that this term appears in reliable sources. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - a clear attack on a living person. Absolutely must go ASAP. (eg. Chimp rightly does not redirect to George W. Bush, and that's a more established nickname) VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've raised the matter at the BLP noticeboard. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - as an attack on a living person. EdJohnston (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - deletion is appropriate, speedy deletion is not for the reasons I have added to the BLP noticeboard. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - disparaging redirects can only be used (if at all) when there are reliable sources indicating the term is widely used as a nickname/shorthand/description of the person. This does not qualify. See Rachel Corrie for precedent. Exxolon (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Bridgeplayer. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 14:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * - as per these comments here I have blanked and requested deletion, many thanks for your input. Off2riorob (talk) 16:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

John IV of France



 * 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. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Ruslik_ Zero 19:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Prince Jean, Duke of Vendôme (links to redirect • [ history] • )

An unnecessary WP:CRYSTAL redirect for the pretended title that the subject of the target article would hold, were his father to die. Redirect might cause confusion as there is no "King John IV of France" today and there may never be one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - not mentioned in the article hence confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - He's known with that title in royalist societies. --Againme (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - if you can reliably source this, and add it to the page, then I will change my !vote to keep. As an assertion, I'm afraid that it is currently OR. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Not mentioned in the article, so no need to have such redirect. And per above comment, if this is proved to be a fact with a source, I'll change my !vote. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (Contact) 16:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Magnum, P.I. (film)



 * 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 and target refined; agreed to by the nominator and no outstanding delete !votes. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Magnum, P.I. (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Redirect has been in place for 3 years, yet the target article has no mention of a film version at all. Previous history of redirected article has unconfirmed information ref'd by speculative data on unreliable sources. Srobak (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the target has a section Magnum,_P.I.. Sorry that i didn't notice before.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does... I missed it as well. However - with the supposed previous production being scrapped and not cited with reliable info, and the supposed current production not cited anywhere else except IMDB which is not classified as a reliable source by WP, and there not being any mention of it anywhere else - I would still think it to be OR at this point, and WP does not necessarily function in the role of a Rumor Mill :) Srobak (talk) 16:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - This and related redirects still serve as a pointer to the place where we would have any discussion of such a film. We have lesser standards on search terms and it may help prevent creation of a premature actual article. See also Redirects_for_discussion--Tikiwont (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Magnum,_P.I., as a more appropriate target. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as now retargeted. Useful search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree and concede Srobak (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Template:Promophoto



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:Non-free promotional (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I cannot conceive any longer any useful purpose for this redirect, since transclusions of it on images do not work like they are supposed to. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  10:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep Apparently this was left as a soft redirect to make it impossible to use it as a licensing template while at the same time enabling readers of old discussion pages to understand what the discussion is about (see explanation). The template is used on over 250 discussion pages, all of which would display a redlink if the redirect was deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 23:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)