Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 July 25

July 25
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 25, 2011

Template:USEexecutiveLists



 * 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 * The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn with no opposing views. NAC. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * → Template:US Chief Executives (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete Used to be one of numerous "lists" templates for governors and chief executives of the US and states, but all have now been migrated to the redirect target. No useful page history. It would be best to delete so as to avoid its potential use again. AP1787 (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, after thinking it over, there's really no reason to delete the page, it might as well just stay as a redirect. Request withdrawn. AP1787 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Template:Vgrationale



 * 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) 22:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → Template:Video game rationale (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Apparently unused template redirect? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Keep This redirect was created as part of a page move. Given that the template is suppose to be subst, it should be no surprise that neither the template or its redirect appear to be "unused". However, since the page move occurred just over a month ago, there are likely a number of editors who are not use to the new name and are still using the old name when creating FURs. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep lack of apparent use is not a valid reason to delete template redirects because of template substitution. i kan reed (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Helen (actress)



 * 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) 22:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → Helen Jairag Richardson (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Propose deletion of redirect, many other actresses called Helen exist. Yunshui (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - see below. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Actress has a full name, redirecting given names is not a common choice. i kan reed (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Helen (dancer)



 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → Helen Jairag Richardson (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Propose deletion of redirect, many other dancers called Helen exist. Yunshui (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete I am not convinced about the page move since 'Helen' is her stage name and we generally title articles on the most commonly used name. However, we are here so delete as as confusing; decidedly ambiguous. I have fixed the link in Helen, so anyone searching on the given name will still find her. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Helen (Bollywood actress)



 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 01:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → Helen Jairag Richardson (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Delete redirect, not sure there are other Bollywood actresses who share the name 'Helen', but it seems plausible; first name redirects of such a common name could cause confusion. Yunshui (talk) 12:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete - see above. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Trisexual



 * 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, without prejudice to recreation of Trisexual if relevant information appears in the target article. --Taelus (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I've heard the term "trisexual" thrown around here and there, but the only Ghits I can find about the term are sites like Urban Dictionary; moreover, the term isn't even mentioned in the target article. I didn't notify the creator because s/he made the redirect back in 2007 and hasn't been on Wikipedia since.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 07:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * → Bisexuality (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * → Bisexuality (links to redirect • [ history] • )
 * Retarget Trisexual to Pansexuality. Very many hits so it is a useful redirect and we may as well target at the most helpful article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought about that (as I identify as pansexual myself), but the term isn't mentioned in that article either.  Erpert  Who is this guy? 06:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Trysexual - as can be see here, this was created as a joke/petty vandalism. Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete trysexual potentially offesnive slang term with no real relationship to target. i kan reed (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete both, unclear connection to target page; neither one is mentioned there. Hairhorn (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal Europe Future Leadership Institute



 * 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. I see no need to history merge as there is no reference of this Institute in the target article, nor to salt as it was recreated only once. - Nabla (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → The Wall Street Journal (links to redirect • [ history] • )

Inappropriate redirect for non-notable organization. any material that may formerly have been merged into the WSJ article has been long removed. Since pages for this organization have been repeatedly re-created, I suggest salting. I would have done this by speedy except a speedy was previously declined in 2009.  DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Move to a sub-page of Talk:The Wall Street Journal and delete the resulting redirect. Content from the original version of this page was merged into The Wall Street Journal on 6 September 2009. The subsequent removal of the material from the visible page does not absolve us of our GFDL obligations to retain attribution; the material remains in the history and, however unlikely it might be, could theoretically be reinstated. My suggested action has precedent and looks the best way to meet our licence requirements since a straight history merge has been rejected. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Commentour gfdl requires us to attribute what is in our articles, not what used to be, or we would need to keep everything that was every once incorporated in an article and then deleted, in order to preserve the theoretically full history. If there is no content, there is no need to attribute it. The material was removed as advertising for what amounts to a newspaper delivery scheme, and we no more keep deleted advertising than we keep deleted  BLP. Th . The attribution is always recoverable by an admin. if justification is every given for making an article or article content.  The proper way to attribute it, without adding advertising to a talk p. -- if we had to attribute deleted text, which we do not -- would be to add a note on the article talk p. that the material in the now-deleted edit  was originally contributed by User:Guerrilla publishing   DGG ( talk ) 00:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hi, I understand your concerns but a non-redirect-linked sub-page of a talk page (sorry, ghastly phrasing I know) is very different from the main talk page. The page exists, if attribution needs to be demonstrated, but its existence would not be obvious to the casual reader of the talk page. The key point is that the material was not deleted from The Wall Street Journal but removed. The difference is that it could be reinstated at any time by any user. For that reason we retain attribution of removed material but not, I agree, of deleted material. Talk page attribution is possible, but clunkier (though it should be to Peter Vonke not Guerrilla publishing who created the material here.) but would actually draw more attention to the removed edit than the hidden sub-page. HTH. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The redirection of the passage The Wall Street Journal Europe Future Leadership Institute to The Wall Street Journal page has lead to the removal of the passage by the administrator of The Wall Street Journal who tought it didn't belong to the page of the US based Wall Street Journal. This was a decission by the Wall Street Journal and not by a neutral Wikipedian. Wall Street Journal - Wikipedia: 1-0 I would say. Peter Vonke (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - the way forward could be either to create a neutral sourced version in user space and seek to reach agreement that it now merits its own article; or copy a neutral sourced version of the text to Talk:The Wall Street Journal and seek consensus to add it back. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:42, 3 August 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.

Planet Narnia



 * 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.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 11:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * → The Chronicles of Narnia (links to redirect • [ history] • )

This is on behalf of a user, User:Ckruschke, who wasn't familiar with our actual processes for deleting redirects, and instead just tried to blank the page; after I pointed them here instead, they had difficulty figuring out how to walk through the process, so I'm posting a procedural nomination on their behalf. The rationale is that Planet Narnia is not a book within the Narnia series, but a book of critical analysis about it which would be more appropriately discussed in a separate standalone article. No !vote from me one way or the other, though obviously Ckruschke would favour deletion. Bearcat (talk) 05:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete or Create a notable/verified article. The book's Amazon page looks okay, hopefully the creator could shape this to a good article. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and refine target to The Chronicles of Narnia. Since we have something useful to say about the book I see no reason to make it harder to find. A redirect doesn't stop a stand-alone article being written. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep redirect is a closely related subject to target. Redirect can be turned into an artice when appropriate.  i kan reed (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep appropriate redirect. It can be expanded to an article any time, if someone has sufficient sources. That's one of the purposes of redirects.    DGG ( talk ) 00:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

equidistant



 * 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 soft redirect to equidistant.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 03:54, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


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

Delete. This should be a redlink, the target article says nothing about it and does not even mention it. 84.75.61.112 (talk) 10:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC) *Delete I can see the argument for the wikitionary softlink, but redlinks are one of the best ways to generate new articles on wikipedia. i kan reed (talk) 17:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary equidistant. Nothing much more than a dictionary definition can be written about it, but the page is getting 400-600 hits a month, so we should have something here. Soft redirects were invented for precisely these sorts of situations. Thryduulf (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Soft redirect to Wiktionary equidistant looks a good solution. No benefit in a red link; this will never be an article. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Soft Redirect per Thryduulf.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:58, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hi, I understand your point, and would agree if the topic was one that would support an article. However, in this case the word is an adjective and IMHO there is no prospect of an encyclopaedic page being written. At best this would always be a dicdef. Consequently, I think that we should be helpful to searchers. Bridgeplayer (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
 * vote withdrawn sounds fine. i kan reed (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

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