Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 4

December 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 4, 2011

Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 09:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Whistler, British Columbia (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect currently goes to the Whistler, British Columbia article, which mentions nothing about the Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre. I propose one of the following options:
 * Deletion - not ideal, but easiest and less confusing than the current situation
 * Rewrite/Add to Whistler, British Columbia - add a section to the article to include information about the Cultural Centre
 * Write an article - someone writes an article about the Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre, so it is no longer a redirect
 * Re-target - retarget to another article which does mention the Cultural Centre, if such an article exists/can be found
 * What do people think? MsBatfish (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * More info: This redirect was originally an article which someone else blanked and turned into a redirect because the article was too promotional sounding. The user who wrote the orig article is currently blocked and so can't comment on this discussion. I will leave a message for the user who made it a redirect in case they have any input. MsBatfish (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be me. Personally I don't see why the redirect can't be kept. It's a reasonable search term but there's no content in the article, so I can't see anything wrong with redirecting to the Whistler article. Sooner or later someone will add some material there, or flesh out the original, redirected article. andy (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Confusing redirect - there is no information in the target article about this centre. The page should be deleted, and only recreated if information is added about this topic. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Graven images



 * 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 retarget to graven image which is now a dab. ~ Alison C. (Crazytales)  22:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Idolatry (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect was prodded but I think further discussion is necessary. The deletion rational was "replaced by disambiguation page", and although a dab has been created at Graven Images (disambiguation), no reasoning has been provided as to why this redirect is no longer valid, or what should happen to it once it is deleted. (Although, I presume that the thought may have been to move the dab here) Questions that spring to mind: Is Idolatry is the primary topic of Graven images or is there enough ambiguity that it should become/redirect to a dab page. Also note Graven Images is a redirect to Graven Images (book) which means the dab is currently orphaned. Another discovery, Graven Image and Graven Image (album) also exist. France 3470  ( talk ) 19:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Move dab page over redirect, retarget Graven Image and Graven Images to the dab page. Where you look on Google gives you different interpretations of what is primary, on scholar idolatry is the clear primary topic. A books search suggests that idolatry might be primary, but weakly (and a specific book on stone carvings in New England seems to feature several times, possibly distorting appearances). A web search gives a great many hits, lots of companies seem to use the phrase for their names or products, and it's also a common title for articles and websites it seems, idolatry comes way down the list. This all suggests to me that there is no primary topic, so the dab page should take the straight title. Idolatry should be the first link on the dab page though. As asides though, PROD does not apply to redirects, so bringing them here is always correct. Secondly, if idolatry was the primary topic, "Graven images" as a redirect to "Idolatry" with a hatnote to "Graven images (disambiguation)" would have been the usual way of arranging things. Thryduulf (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Retarget to disambiguation page: I agree with Thryduulf. "Graven images" is the name for many different things and does not appear to have a primary topic. It could be really confusing for readers to be sent to Idolatry. Therefore, Graven images and any variants, such as Graven Images, Graven image, or Graven Image, should all go to the disambiguation page. We can add any other related articles to the list on the DAB page as well. MsBatfish (talk) 05:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Minnesota model



 * 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 per WP:RED. Ruslik_ Zero 14:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Twelve-Step Program (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Has no reason to suggest how this would have anything do with Minnesota. JDOG555 (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Stubbify or delete per WP:RED. The Minnesota model is an alternative (it seems) to the Twelve-Step Programme, and looking at the google hits it's clearly something we could have an article on. The 120-odd page views a month suggest it's something we should have an article on. Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep redreict. The minnesota model is just another name of the 12-step program. Simply google for this... Rkarlsba (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My impression from Google was that it was a different thing to the 12-step program we detail at the current target. If it is the same we should have at least a bolded mention of the name "Minnesota model" as its undoubtedly a notable term. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: The "Minnesota Model" is not just another name for "the 12-step program". It is not a 12-step program at all. It's philosophy may be similar to or even loosely modelled on the philosophy of Alcoholics Anonymous (and/or Narcotics Anonymous), but that does not make it a 12-step program. More information on it can be found here: http://archives.drugabuse.gov/ADAC/ADAC11.html . If no one wants to write an article about the Minnesota Model at this time, then I think the re-direct should either be deleted, or be re-targeted to a more related article, ideally with said article being added to, to actually mention the Minnesota Model and describe what it is. MsBatfish (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Old-70



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 14:54, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Template:PD-old-70 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unused - actually only used on one file page (File:House-of-Refuge-Biscayne-Bay.jpg) before I removed it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:Old70



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Template:PD-old-70 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unused Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:GFDL-nologo



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 19:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Template:GFDL (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Deprecated template; unlikely usage. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently I've gone and asked for a deletion on a template protected by a bigwig under the logic of "legal reasons". Hopefully said bigwig will come along and comment and allow deletion or disallow it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I noticed you left a message on that user's talk page that you were proposing this redirect for deletion, that's a good start. I don't understand this redirect's necessity... It seems that having the Template titled 'GFDL' would be enough, I'm not sure why something more specific yet beginning with the same letters is needed? Maybe the user who has protected it can enlighten us? Although he seems to only be active on Wikipedia around once a month these days. MsBatfish (talk) 05:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like it's only for appearance purposes. No one is actually using it. And BTW the protecting admin has indicated it's OK to delete should we reach that decision - it was only protected because copyright templates were protected back then. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unneeded template redirects can go away. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:PD-sel



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Template:PD-self (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Ditto to below (still unlikely). Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like PD-salted or something. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. A silly typo; needs more poivre to be useful. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Template:You created this yourself and release it to the public domain



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 18:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Template:PD-self (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Originally a test page; very unlikely redirect. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: I agree, who would search for that or link to it? It's overly verbose and it doesn't appear to be used (except as a result of listing it here for discussion). MsBatfish (talk) 05:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.