Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 September 28

September 28
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 28, 2011

Peaceful demonstration



 * 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.  Lenticel  ( talk ) 06:58, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


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

It was listed at WP:AFD with the rationale, "It serves no purpose. It was only linked by two articles. I changed one to a pipe and the other will be piped or changed pending a discussion." RFD is the right venue for this.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - mentioned in the target and this was the original name for the target article. I am open to persuasion but, at this stage, I am not seeing a good reason to delete. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as procedural nominator. At worst, this should be retargeted. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the fact that it isn't linked doesn't mean anything provided it's a plausible search term. This redirect is getting hits and is mentioned in the target article. Could be refined to target the "Nonviolence or violence" section. Hut 8.5 16:25, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * DeleteI originally listed it and on top of what I said, it is arguably POV.--Metallurgist (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if this is POV that isn't a reason to delete a redirect. Redirects can take readers from POV titles to NPOV ones (WP:RNEUTRAL). Hut 8.5 20:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as a useful search aid. Zickel (talk) 20:48, 5 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.

Groos



 * 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 as a dab. Ruslik_ Zero 11:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


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

Delete, or change to Disambiguation page. Target is a singular song, and does not contain the word Groos in the article, so I don't understand the Redirect. Groos, however, is a common German name, so there should not be a generalized Redirect on a common name that goes to a song title.Maile66 (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me add to this, and how I came to discover the Redirect. There are already WP pages out there with the name Groos: Carl Wilhelm August Groos House (San Antonio, Texas), Carl W. A. Groos House (New Braunfels, Texas).  "Groos" as a redirect is too vague when a user might just have a last name as a search word. Maile66 (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Disambiguate - The connection is clearer in this version but it's still there. However, we have five notable Groos. I have mocked up a disamb page on the redirect. Bridgeplayer (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like the mock up you did. I think it would take care of the situation. Maile66 (talk) 17:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as a disambiguation as now shown by the mocked up by Bridgeplayer. Zickel (talk) 20:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as disambiguated - Thanks again Bridgeplayer for all your hard work. With so many Groos, this certainly seems like the best choice. — m a k o ๛  18:40, 6 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.

Template:Non-free use rationale album



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 11:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * → Template:Non-free use rationale album cover (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect seems to be have been created when the names of fair use rationale templates were standardised earlier this year. As such it is felt to be redundant to it's target, as nothing important now links to it. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Now redundant to the more descriptive name. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is not useful as a search term. Zickel (talk) 20:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - Template redirects are of very limited value to begin with. Despite the very low risk of harm, it seems like keeping around unused template redirects is a hard to thing to argue for. — m a k o ๛  18:41, 6 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.