Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 19

July 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 19, 2011

Wikipedia:FOO



 * 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 --Taelus (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


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

WP:FOO is not related to sandbox. WP:SB, WP:SAND, WP:SANDBOX and WP:TEST are related to the sandbox. See the meaning on Wiktionary. Omkar 1234  Leave me a message! 11:50, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per the previous discussion it does no harm. Additionally, as it's getting 300-400 hits a month deleting it would likely cause inconvenience for no good reason. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:SB uses the initials of the word Sand Box, WP:SAND is the word Sand of Sandbox, WP:SANDBOX uses the full word and WP:TEST shows the use of the sandbox: for test edits. What does WP:FOO mean by sandbox? Omkar 1234   Leave me a message!  15:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's related to the use of the word "foo" as a metasyntactic variable used for testing. Why do you want to delete something that is obviously being used? Thryduulf (talk) 15:58, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep usual dummy name used in computing. Since the dummy name leads to a dummy page, it seems entirely appropriate. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Outkast stankonia



 * 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. Thryduulf (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


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

Delete redirect as far too implausible. Outkast alone will bring the reader to the group's article, and Stankonia will bring one right to the album page, which is where this redirect goes anyway. There is no other Stankonia that needs to be dabbed, either. MSJapan (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep - gets around 100 hits per month so some readers find it helpful. It's harmless and there are no policy based reasons for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Sachgebietes



 * 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 no consensus.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


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

I moved the article to Sachgebiet which is the proper noun. Sachgebietes is simply the genetive, so there is no point keeping the redirect. Unfortunately another author seems to disagree. FJS15 (talk) 04:53, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, both to maintain the edit history of the page (a page move is just as much an attributable edit as a content change), to maintain incoming links from external sites, and as a useful search term comparable to the many redirects from plurals we have. It doesn't apparently conflict with anything, so there is no reason to delete it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: The term Sachgebietes appears in a few Third Reich sources. There also is a title Leiter eines Sachgebietes that might be used as a search term or an article link. -OberRanks (talk) 15:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - potentially helpful. It's harmless and there are no policy based reasons for deletion. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep on the basis that someone might link there as a previous article title. Apart from that  Sachgebietes  would be the correct synatax to link internally to Sachgebietes.
 * Delete. Changed my mind based on the age of the article. Then I rather have it deleted so not to encourage a wrong searchtarget developing. Agathoclea (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Apart from the declined speedy there is no non-trivial history in the redirect, and a genitive such as "Sachgebietes" as a title is so completely and utterly wrong (in fact I didn't even realise it's the genitive because it's so unexpected in a title; I read it as the German plural Sachgebiete, with an additional English plural -s) that it makes no sense to preserve this. I also don't buy the argument that there might be incoming links from elsewhere. This is extremely unlikely. To get an idea of how inappropriate this redirect is, think of cat's, dog's, house's etc., only with the difference that one could try to justify redirects for English inflections as a convenience on the English Wikipedia, while a German genitive in English text makes no sense whatsoever. Hans Adler 19:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As stated above, several sources on Nazi Germany refer to a title known as Leiter eines Sachgebietes - so it was used in this sense making it therefore a valid redirect and/or search term. -OberRanks (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You could always redirect Leiter eines Sachgebietes instead and have a gramatical valid search term Agathoclea (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * However, that would be less helpful for people searching for "Sachgebietes" only. Redirects do not have to be grammatically valid, just useful or harmless - this appears to be both. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Lebel and Bertheir Rifles



 * 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. Thryduulf (talk) 03:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)


 * → Lebel Model 1886 rifle (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Dubious redirect because Lebel Model 1886 rifle and Berthier rifles have different articles. It was pointed out on the talk page of the Lebel article by an IP. FuFoFuEd (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - confusing as described in the nom. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)