Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 February 8

February 8
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 8, 2011

Wrif



 * 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. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


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

Delete. This redirect serves no apparent purpose. Nothing links to it, and if removed, typing in any capitalization-variation of the letters "W-R-I-F" (Wrif, wRIf, wRiF, etc.) would simply direct readers to the correct page of WRIF. Moreover, this redirect cannot be considered an alternate name for the article it redirects to as American radio station callsigns are always in capital letters. Levdr1 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep because it helps to document a pagemove. In particular, this documents a pagemove from before the software was updated to automatically record the moves in history.  Also, it is a capitalization variant, one of the preferred uses for redirects and which captures navigation techniques which (unlike the embedded search engine) are case-sensitive.  Please also remember that ideally all redirects are orphans.  Nothing currently linked to it is explicitly not a reason to delete.  Rossami (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep to benefit those users who navigate using case-sensitive methods, to maintain the page move history, and because there is no good reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'

Tien len (VC)



 * 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 (non-admin closure) → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four  ♣ ← 00:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Tien len (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete. It's not standard to put alternate names in parens, let alone (opaque) acronyms for alternate names. Implausible search term, etc. Only genuine link is from the "See also" section of Playing card. 4pq1injbok (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep because it helps to document the pagemove. While it is not standard to put disambiguation content in a title, it's not especially uncommon.  In this case, it creates no confusion since, as you say, it redirects to the better title.  It might optionally be tagged with unprintworthy.  Please remember that redirects do more than merely support the search engine.  Rossami (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)