Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 September 28

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

Benedikt XVI.



 * 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) 00:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Pope Benedict XVI (links to redirect • [ history] • )

People looking for the article on Pope Benedict XVI probably won't type in "Benedikt XVI." (period after the name). For example, Pope John Paul. (with period) does not redirect to Pope John Paul II (no period).

Note: I'm not nominating for deletion based on the spelling of "Benedict". Benedikt is a common German spelling of Benedict. It's the period after "Benedikt XVI" that makes this an inappropriate page title; no one's going to type a period after the page title. --- cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC) cymru lass (hit me up)⁄(background check) 22:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - The period makes it an implausible search term.   Snotty Wong   gab 23:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The dot is actually part of the German spelling as well, it's part of the ordinal number: "16th" in English would be "16." in German, see Ordinal Indicator#German. Consequently the German version of the article is at "de:Benedikt XVI.". I have no opinion whether that is a reason to keep the redirect or not since I'm not really familiar with RfD standards, so just take this as a comment. Seems plausible to me. Search engine would list it anyway, but that's true for many redirects. Amalthea  00:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly right, good call. I change my vote to Keep.    Snotty Wong   verbalize 23:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - perfectly plausible search term as can be see here and explained above. This is a harmless, long-standing redirect and no valid grounds for deletion have been specified. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;plausible-enough search term, harmless. –Grondemar 04:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Amalthea's explanation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"sarah lewis"



 * 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 speedy deleted WP:CSD - no need to bring this type of redirect here. JohnCD (talk) 15:30, 28 September 2010 (UTC)


 * → Sarah Lewis (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Previous consensus at RfD has been to delete redirects consisting of the same article title only surrounded by quotation marks. –Grondemar 03:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Speedy delete as R3 and tagged as such; created today. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Curse of Moreno's Mistake



 * 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 Deleted. There is no GFDL issue. The redirector did not copy any text from the original and instead wrote his own single line statement. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:56, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Article was originally about a non-notable term proposed by a single opinion piece back in October 2008 that has not been picked up by the mainstream. Content was merged to Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, which I subsequently removed as non-notable, leaving a redirect. Term not likely to be searched for. No incoming links. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Support - I redirected and merged chiefly because there are no speedy deletion criteria that applied to this article. The material may or may not be appropriate for Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, but the redirect doesn't serve any significant purpose. Tim Pierce (talk) 11:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Move to a sub-page of Talk:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and delete the resulting redirect. Recently created and confusing since the content gas been removed from the target. However, since there has been a merge, deletion would breach our GFDL obligations (the current removal of the merged material does not affect this since it remains in the history and is available to be restored at a future date}. Bridgeplayer (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Question - I don't understand. Because something from the original article has been merged into another article, the GFDL prohibits us from deleting the original?  That seems extremely unlikely.  If it were the case, we would be unable to delete any article which ever had text reused elsewhere on Wikipedia. Tim Pierce (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Response Contributions to Wikipedia are covered by GFDL. Amongst other things this requires the author of contributions be credited. When text from one page is merged into another page then there must be an audit trail back to the original author. This does not prohibit deletion; indeed the mechanism I have proposed, above, amounts to deletion. There are various methods to meet our obligation, that the relevant part of the history must be preserved in a retrievable form, and in this case this is the simplest. See WP:COPYWITHIN. Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can identify which text of the merge was copied from the original article then we can make sure it is attributed properly. Tim Pierce (talk) 02:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Spam-blacklisting



 * 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 Deleted. -- JLaTondre (talk) 00:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * → Spam-blacklisting (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Useless cross-namespace redirect that was created per a move with not much linking to it. I previously nominated the talkpage here because I couldn't do so on the interface page. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  02:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'