Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 11

October 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 11, 2011

Chakar



 * 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 Create disambiguation page. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Redirect of a name which is no longer mentioned in the article, within a paragraph no longer in the article. It was only a mention in passing in the first place. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate - mock up on redirect page. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate - Nice. I love it when you do this Bridgeplayer! This definitely seems like the right solution. — m a k o ๛  17:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambig, per above. The mock page looks great and will improve with navigation on that topic. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I suppport the idea of replacing with a disambiguation page. The mock-up, however, is assuming, wrongly I think, that Chakar is identical to Chaker. See Talk:Chakar for details. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:04, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - my bad. Now fixed; thanks for sweeping up after me. :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 02:02, 13 October 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 Loyalists of North America



 * 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 Loyalist (American Revolution). Ruslik_ Zero 19:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Delete This term is not associated with the United Empire Loyalists. It is only used on Wikipedia and its mirrors in this manner. As the UEL are British Empire Loyalists who moved to Canada after the American Revolution, the originating term has a much broader scope, such as Loyalists who remained in the 13 Colonies, or Loyalists for things other than the British Empire who are in North America. So this is a bad redirect. When originally written as an article, it duplicated the topic of United Empire Loyalist. 70.24.247.61 (talk) 04:26, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a good redirect until someone builds a readable article. How about you, IP, since you're so passionate? → ROUX   ₪  04:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Any such article would conflate topics together and violate WP:COATRACK or WP:SYN. The only thing that could occupy this location is a disambiguation page. 70.49.126.190 (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate - because of the definite article I am not convinced how useful this is as a search term. But, having said that, we are here and I agree that this is a broader term and it can be disambiguated with Loyalist (American Revolution). Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Loyalist (American Revolution) - This redirect isn't hurting anybody and is getting a little traffic. That said, Loyalist (American Revolution) seems to either be, or include links to, the large number of loyalist related topics folks would look for. For those that might care to keep, this page links to United Empire Loyalists] in the first paragraph. I wouldn't object to a DAB but I don't think it's necessary given this target. — m a k o ๛  18:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Disambig. I can see how someone searching for this would want either UAE or loyalists in the American revolution, so a disambig page makes a lot of sense. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this article is good because it brings out true facts which are not just neutral. It is good to sometimes have an opinion on something than just go along with the flow. Everything in the article I find true anyways even though it is opinionated. Go research hard-you will find many of these facts are true. JoJaEpp (talk) 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an article anymore, it's a redirect to another article. 70.49.126.190 (talk) 04:12, 14 October 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.