Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 October 28

October 28
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 28, 2010

Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisiana/Stubs



 * 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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → WikiProject Louisiana (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Unlikely redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - the target actually is WikiProject Louisiana for which the redirect is an entirely plausible search term. The stats show some usage and deletion would break a bunch of links. No policy compliant reason to delete. Further, this was redirected by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Louisiana/Stubs. When XFD redirects a title then bringing the redirect to RFD is bad process. DRV, or a fresh XFD nomination, is the way to go. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Vin Wright



 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  01:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → Ernest Vincent Wright (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Made-up name for Ernest Vincent Wright, sole purpose of this redirect was to have a version of the article Gadsby (novel) which did not contain the letter 'e'. Extremely unlikely search target, should probably be deleted pablo 15:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 16:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - no reason to delete; for example it is not confusing with anyone else. "unlikely search target" is not a ground for deletion which may break links in external sites. Harmless. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete serves to mislead by creating the false impression that he was ever called "Vin." He never was. The invention was purely to avoid using the letter e.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - it doesn't mislead and doesn't create "the false impression that he was ever called "Vin.""; redirects are only search aids and are value-free with regard to their formulation - see WP:RNEUTRAL. Only someone searching on the term would know of its existence. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But reason #8 for deletion says, "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful. Implausible typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created." In this case, the redirect is a novel (and hence very obscure) name for Wright. It is furthermore both a misnomer and an implausible typo. I'd say speedy delete it if it weren't a couple years old. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bridgeplayer, could you clarify your position a little? I noticed that you're arguing for deletion in a similar situation elsewhere (ie. a made-up name for the target article's subject), and even implying that reliable sources(!) would be needed for the alternative name, yet here you're taking a completely opposite viewpoint. The two cases seem pretty analoguous to me, so I'd be interested to hear why you think they should be treated differently. Jafeluv (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The point in the previous RFD was that 'Deutsch' was never a last name for Antal Doráti nor is it an alternative form for his name and, as such, was confusing. In the case under discussion, 'Vin Wright' is a contraction of his real name which has been used as a search term albeit seldomly. I think that name contractions are, generally, fine as redirects unless shown to be harmful and no-one has made that case. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the clarification. I agree that plausible contractions are valid redirects (Dick Nixon redirects to Richard Nixon, for example). However, the page views for this redirect (about 5 a month this year) could be someone searching for any number of Vin Wrights who have nothing to do with the subject of this article. For those readers, a search page that tells them that we don't have a Vin Wright article yet would be a far more helpful target than ending up in an article about an Ernest Vincent Wright. Jafeluv (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as an obscure synonym which is unlikely to be useful. Rnb (talk) 20:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --John (talk) 05:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per RfD Rich Farmbrough, 07:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC).

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete under criterion 8 as a novel or very obscure synonym. Sideways713 (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. If a name is completely made up, a redirect serves no purpose and should be deleted. Jafeluv (talk) 15:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless and implausible. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per the arguments above. ClovisPt (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

John Adams (politician)



 * 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 Re-targeted to John Adams (disambiguation) as an obvious case of disambiguation needed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Tom Adams (politician) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Retarget to the disambiguation page John Adams (disambiguation). I frankly thought this would lead to the two Presidents of the United States... but it doesn't. This disambiguated title is insufficiently disambiguous to be anything but confusing. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Retarget to John Adams (disambiguation) as obviously better. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

2009 Disneyland, Florida train collision



 * 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 Re-targeted to Incidents at Walt Disney World Resort. Did not include specific section in re-target as Disney World has a train in addition to the monorail. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * → Incidents at Disney parks (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Unlikely search term. "Disneyland, Florida" does not exist and is confusing. Uncle Dick (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Retarget, for preference, to Incidents at Walt Disney World Resort but do not delete. Long-standing redirect and deletion might break links in external sites for no benefit. The usage stats show that it is an entirely plausible search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete If external sites are linking to this place, it is not our business. Unlikely search term, per nom. Diego Grez (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - we have a cooperative relationship with the mirrors and we don't break their links without good reason. Being an 'Unlikely search term' is not a deletion criterion but even if it were the stats show that it is used as a search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

07:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep per RfD. Not sure who this would confuse. Rich Farmbrough, 07:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC).