Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 23

January 23
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2011

Categories for discussion



 * 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 Articles for Creation. The remaining ones were previously deleted by JamesBWatson. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Recently created CNRs with little substantial edit histories, whose author is the same as that of Red links (now currently undergoing discussion as well). This user has also done nothing otherwise constructive to the encyclopedia. Note that a few pages bearing similar titles were also deleted as cross-namespace redirects (e.g. Redirects for discussion and Proposed deletion) and Articles for creation was even salted, therefore WP:CSD may apply if there was previously a deletion discussion about them. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  20:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Categories for discussion (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:Articles for creation (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Wikipedia:No original research (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Several of these were previously deleted as the result of RfD discussions and can probably be speedy-deleted as recreated content. The only one I will argue to defend is Articles for creation (which was also previously RfD'd but I think we got that one wrong).  My argument for Articles for Creation is that it is a credible aid for brand new users who don't know how to find the correct page and who do not yet understand the separate namespaces.  Rossami (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Articles for Creation per Rossami - I agree that this is an aid to very new users who don't understand about namespaces. Delete the others as recently created CNRs that add very little (if any) value to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete all In fact I have speedily deleted all of them except Articles for Creation, and I would have deleted that too but for the fact that "keep" has been suggested here. While I do understand the argument about Articles for Creation being useful to newcomers, I do not see that it is powerful enough to over-ride the policy of not having cross-namespace redirects. The same argument could just as well apply to many other Wikipedia pages, and no case has been made that this one is special. Someone using Wikipedia to view articles should not accidentally find themselves in a page intended for those editing rather than viewing Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Articles for Creation, too, per JBW. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-delete all, including Articles for Creation, per JBW. I see Rossami's point about the possibility of the redirect being useful to a brand-new user; however, in this same vein, the existence of the cross-namespace redirect can serve to reinforce the user's misconceptions about the namespaces. In addition, I find it unlikely that a new user with such limited knowledge of Wikipedia would find out about the AFC process from a location that did not link to WP:AFC. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Idiotarian



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * → Charles Foster Johnson (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Non-notable neologism, not mentioned on target page; arguably pejorative. Previously deleted at AFD, see Articles for deletion/Idiotarian. Robofish (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete. I concur with the AfD decision to remove the page from the encyclopedia.  As a redirect, it is still a non-notable neologism.  I might be more tolerant of the redirect if it were being created to preempt the re-creation of deleted content but the edit history does not show such a pattern.  Rossami (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Hong Kong/Hong Kong infobox



 * 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. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * → Hong Kong (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Completely obscure and no substantial incoming links. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep to document history. The original content was first at Template:Hong Kong infobox.  It was discussed in a TfD debate in 2006.  The content was moved out of the Template space but archived in the Talk space as a result of that debate.  It was subsequently moved from Talk to Mainspace, then merged to the main article.  Note:  Most of the history can now be found behind Hong Kong/Infobox so this redirect merely helps those who are trying to trace the moves to find the history more easily.  Rossami (talk) 06:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. This forms part of the edit history of the Hong Kong article. It was moved to Hong Kong/infobox and merged into Hong Kong in 2006. The redirect is doing no harm here, and reasons to keep redirects 1 and 5 apply. Thryduulf (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace this is an edit history subpage, so is necessarily required to be kept around. However, the edit history itself was moved to an incorrect location,, which should be moved back here. 64.229.103.232 (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete the redirect under discussion has no edit history to keep. And for what it is worth, the actual infobox that was used until spring 2006 - that can be deleted too. While it has an edit history, none of that history is necessary (data only or irrelevant text). SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * The edit history of Hong Kong/Infobox is very much needed - it was merged into the main Hong Kong article and so needs to be kept for attribution purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)