Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 November 27

November 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 27, 2011

Template:UnitedStates-stub



 * 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. Jafeluv (talk) 10:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → Template:US-stub (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

No need for this redirect. Its fairly implausible and there was only one article that linked to it which I already removed. Kumioko (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Response I honestly don't understand why stub template redirects are deleted--I can't always remember the syntax for stub names, so having USstub and US-stub and UnitedStatesstub etc. just seems like a good idea. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is used, it might help someone, and redirects are cheap. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this is the wrong forum - aren't redirects to stub templates normally dealt with over at Stub types for deletion? Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is the wrong forum then someone should modify twinkle cause I used it to add this submission. --Kumioko (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This is the correct venue for all other types of redirect. As I don't use twinkle (or anything similar) I've got no idea how it works. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I fail to see why you want to delete this, since the redirect makes more sense than the actual name of the stub template. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: How is it "fairly implausible"? It is very possible that someone might use it as a search term when looking for the stub. MsBatfish (talk) 10:59, 1 December 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.

John McFall



 * 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 move dab page to John McFall. Jafeluv (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * → John McFall, Baron McFall of Alcluith (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Deletion or Retarget to existing disambiguation page. There is a John McFall (disambiguation) page that lists three others named John McFall, one of whom is the Baron McFalll. There should not be an automatic Redirect to a singular one of those three. Maile66 (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget John McFall (disambiguation) should redirect to this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget, or move the disambig page to John McFall. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Move disambig page to this title. The redirect would be the correct if Baron McFall was the primary topic (his article is at the title it is due to naming conventions for UK nobility), but it's clear from Google that there is neither he nor the paralympian is primary and I suspect the Congressman would be higher on a US search than he is on UK one. There is therefore no primary topic and the dab page should be primary. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * replace with the dab page 70.24.248.23 (talk) 04:47, 3 December 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.

The Hana to Yume



 * 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 procedurally closed and both pages returned to articles without prejudice. The actions of the nominator in replacing one of the articles with a redirect to the other and immediately nominating it for deletion and at the same time adding redirect syntax to the top of the other redirecting back to the first (a circular redirect) and at the same time tagging that one for RfD as well (without listing it) are curious. They suggest either an incomplete understanding of what they were doing or an attempt to delete one or both articles outside of AfD. Given that I can see no reason not to assume good faith, I am presuming it is the former. The best way forward is for discussion to take place on one of the article talk pages about the options (keep two articles, merge one into the other, redirect one to the other or deletion of one of the articles). If one of them is redirected in future, there is neither a requirement for nor prejudice against a new nomination here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


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

Deletion: The two are not the same magazine even though the only difference is "the". They are sister magazines and I think having the redirect confuses people into thinking that they are the same magazine. 満月天使 (talk) 02:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Are they independently notable or should they be covered together in one article? Thryduulf (talk) 10:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural close the redirect "" was created by the nominator at the time of the RfD's emplacement (see ) on top of an existing article, making the redirect 24k in size. The page "" is missing any RfD notice. Further was an 8k article until July 2010, and it used to say that "The Hana ..." was a supplement to "Hana ..." . I have no idea which "redirect" the nominator wants to delete, since they are both now redirects, because of what the nominator did when putting on the RfD tag. 70.24.248.23 (talk) 11:15, 27 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.