Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 20

September 20
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 20, 2010




 * 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. Bridgeplayer provides convincing arguments. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Pi to One Million Digits

 * → Pi (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - being an 'Unlikely search term' is not a valid ground for deletion of, as here, a long-standing redirect. Anyway, the stats show that it is a used search term. This is a former article that was redirected pursuant to Articles for deletion/Pi to One Million Digits. Deletion risks breaking links within external sites for no benefit. One of the references does indeed provide "Pi to One Million Digits" so readers will find what they are seeking. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wendy Wheal



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Turkish Airlines Flight 981 (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Presume a victim of the accident redirected to but does not appear to be notable enough for a mention in the article, request deletion MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - not mentioned in the target nor, so far as I can see, has she been mentioned in earlier versions of the page. Consequently it only serves to confuse. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Thomas Christmas Riggs, Jr.



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Thomas Riggs, Jr. (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Thomas Riggs, Jr. (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Thomas Riggs, Jr. (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Thomas Riggs, Jr. (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Redirect originally created through incorrect naming of article (possibly due to findagrave using this name). Unfortunately, while I have not been able to determine his middle name, there are numerous period sources that clearly show his middle initial was "W" and not "C" as would be the case if the original article name was correct (Examples of this are available from official U.S. Navy reports and from magazine articles he authored). Allen3 talk 17:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep all - these are entirely plausible search terms as shown by the hits for the first, in particular. The fact that they may be inaccurate is not a ground for deletion. It is the responsibility of the article to get the name right and not a responsibility of the redirect. The key test is - will this redirect take the reader to the page that they are seeking? In this case the answer is yes. Readers of findagrave and other websites will come here and will use the name given in those sites as their search parameter. Deletion would leave them confused; keeping would leave them enlightened. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. This was the title and start of the article for six years, and is of http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=29333088 . I doubt anybody else would be intended --Rumping (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bollocks



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Template:Citation needed (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Unused/orphan. I think it's insulting to add "bollocks" to an unreferenced sentence. We always have to assume good faith and don't discourage editors. Magioladitis (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - presumably a failed attempt at humour; or making some sort of point? Anyway, inappropriate. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - agreed. Since some "facts" are so very dubious, I can understand the motivation for this template's creation, but the yielding to it. --Bejnar (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;not an appropriate redirect. –Grondemar 05:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I would think hoax would be a more likely target. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The First Single Album



 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Bigbang (song) (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Vague search term, orphaned link. — ξ xplicit  01:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - being orphaned is not significant for a redirect. However, this is so generic as to be confusing. Bridgeplayer (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as vague and confusing. –Grondemar 05:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as confusing. It is too vague. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  12:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)