Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 21

November 21
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 21, 2011

The Obama Deception



 * 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 retarget to The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off. Clear consensus below, so no need wait any longer. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * → Alex Jones (radio host) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

The Obama Deception should redirect to The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off instead of to Alex Jones (radio host). I would follow standard procedures and edit The Obama Deception, but it is protected. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: Nomination formatting fixed and template added to article. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Retarget as per nomination. I think it should be speedy closed, the proposed target is more accurate and it wasn't there at time of redirect creation. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:35, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget. I agree that this one can be done speedily - it's transparently the correct target for that search term, and there's no good reason not to do it. Robofish (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to The Obama Deception: The Mask Comes Off. 'The Obama Deception' is the short form of the title of this film so seems a clear action. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:07, 23 November 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.

Süderländer Volksfreund



 * 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 retarget to Lüdenscheider Nachrichten. Jafeluv (talk) 10:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


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

Süderländer Volksfreund is a german newspaper of Plettenberg. The newspaper is a member of Märkischer Zeitungsverlag. Main newspaper of MZV is Lüdenscheider Nachrichten, but the page links to Lüdenscheid, a german city. Neither the redirect will be corrected or the page will be deleted. The current status is not good! --Der Buckesfelder - Talk  - Valuation  - E-mail 16:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that Süderländer Volksfreund is one of a series of local newspapers published by a media group whose principal title in the area is Lüdenscheider Nachrichten. If I am correct (and I'm not sure as the English on the proposed title is not very good at all), then the proposal seems like the equivalent of the Cheddar Valley Gazzette redirect to Mid Somerset Series - good redirect. I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany and hold off on making a recommendation until they've either confirmed my interpreation or explained what the situation actually is. Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes of course, Lüdenscheider Nachrichten is badly written, but Süderländer Volksfreund is closer to Lüdenscheider Nachrichten as to Lüdenscheid. If the page should redirect to a city, it should be linked to Plettenberg. --Der Buckesfelder - Talk  - Valuation  - E-mail 19:29, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Lüdenscheider Nachrichten per the nomination and user:Hans Adler's comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Lüdenscheider Nachrichten per nomination. If articles on Märkischer Zeitungsverlag and Westfälische Anzeiger existed, the content for both newspapers and several others should probably be merged into one of those. --Boson (talk) 14:40, 22 November 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.