Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 October 18

October 18
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 18, 2011

Sandy Point, Washington



 * 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 Saratoga Passage. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * → Sandy Point State Park (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect is currently going to a state park in Maryland. The location named Sandy Point is a housing development within the larger community of Bellingham, Washington. As this development does not have any sources to pass WP:GNG, it does not appear to be suitable to have a redirect. Trusilver 06:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - But not for the reasons the nominator has suggested. Sandy Point is both a development and a description of geographical formation in Langley, Washington on Whidbey Island. For example, you can see it referenced in Saratoga Passage in a way that is not connected to the development. If I were every confident that this topic would never grow an article, I would suggest retargetting to Saratoga Passage. As it is, I think the good of that is pretty minor (although it would at least tell people where Sandy Point is) and I think a red link is probably for the best. — m a k o ๛  14:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and retarget to Saratoga Passage. Lack of notability is not a reason to delete a redirect. This redirect was once an article, but was converted to a redirect. Ruslik_ Zero 13:56, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Saratoga Passage. Since 'Sandy Point State Park' is actually in Maryland, the present target is a rather poor idea! However, the suggested retarget is, at least, not misleading and since there seems no desire to have a standalone article then it seems the best solution at the moment.
 * 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.