Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 December 9

December 9
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 9, 2011

Margaret Scott (Salem)



 * 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. The lack of notability is a reason to keep the redirect. The nominator may, of course, retarget it to a specific section of the article. Ruslik_ Zero 14:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


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

the redirect and blank page should be deleated) It has no valuable edit history and all it seems to do is link a name in a template to the begining of a long article about Salem witch trials. There is very little about Margaret Scott in this article. The purpose of the template was to request the creation of good articles about the people it listed. The redirect did not further this end. It is instead a little confusing in part because there is very little information about her in that article. At the time of the redirect's creation it appeared to have been made as a way of attacking the purpose of the template or as a way of expressing that there was not enough information to justify an article about Margret Scott. It makes the template look funny. It does not link to a part of the article which mentions Margaret Scott but links to the begining of a fairly long and detailed article with very little information in it about her. If deleating the redirect and blank page is not approved I would ask that this redirect at least link to the part of the Salem witch trials article that directly mentions Margaret Scott.John5Russell3Finley (talk) 00:00, 10 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.

Jeff Luck



 * 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 14:32, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


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

All the incoming links for Jeff Luck are for a cricket umpire who may warrant his own page. It doesn't look like "Jeff Luck" is a common misspelling for Jeff Luc the football player. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:RED. Even searching for "Jeff Luck" football I only get one hit about the footballer. When there is an article, hatnotes should be provided, but it doesn't need more than that. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 9 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.