Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 April 11

April 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2012

John Krogh



 * 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 all. JohnCD (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete all - Multiple redirects (with variations on name spellings) for survivors of an aircraft accident, no mention in article of the names of the survivors. Unlikely that multiple survivors are ever notable in aircraft accidents and no real encyclopedic reason to create redirects for them all. MilborneOne (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * → Corporate Airlines Flight 5966 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Corporate Airlines Flight 5966 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Corporate Airlines Flight 5966 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Corporate Airlines Flight 5966 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Korean Air Lines Flight 902 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 *  → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Air Canada Flight 797 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Avianca Flight 52 (links to redirect • [ history] • )    [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * Delete per WP:BLP1E, none of these persons are known except for the crash they were involved in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamJE (talk • contribs)
 * Delete all. I think these are extensions of the precedent created after the Sept 11 tragedy where the victims' articles were by and large turned into redirects in order to preempt pages which failed WP:NOTMEMORIAL.  1) That was a weak precedent and 2) the precedent such as it was covered victims, not survivors.  Rossami (talk) 04:51, 12 April 2012 (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.

Amistad (1841)



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * → United States v. The Amistad (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

What to do about this redirect. The title suggests it should redirect to La Amistad, but the famous mutiny on the ship happened in 1839, not 1841. The supreme court case about it United States v. The Amistad did happen in 1841, but this title is not the proper format for a court case. Perhaps it should be retargeted to the disambiguation page? It shouldn't be delete as the US v Amistad article was at this title for years. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  14:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Unlikely search term, but any incoming links would be intended for the Supreme Court case and no other target seems quite as appropriate. – hysteria18 (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep-Redirects don't have to conform to proper title formatting; in fact, the entire point is often that they don't. --Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as is per Fyre2387. Any reader wanting to find La Amistad will find it prominently linked in the first paragraph of the current target page.  The disambiguation page is also prominently linked on both pages.  Rossami (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2012 (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.

Kildow



 * 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 speedily updated target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


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

Double Redirect. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 10:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have speedily updated the target as is normal practice for double redirects. This is without prejudice to another nomination if you want to propose deletion or pointing it at a different target. Thryduulf (talk) 10:54, 11 April 2012 (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.

Lindsey Kildow



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


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

Double redirect. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 10:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag with . Erm, this isn't a double redirect. It's a single redirect from the subjects maiden name to her married name, the article was moved a few days after her wedding in 2007. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time of this, it was part of a double redirect, redirecting to something not on the subject. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 21:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain. At time of nomination, the title was a redirect to Lindsey Vonn.  The target page has not been edited since two days prior to the nomination.  The pagehistories do not appear to substantiate your claim.  Rossami (talk) 04:41, 12 April 2012 (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.

Logitech mm50



 * 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 with no prejudice to reverting to an article and then discussing that at AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


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

Delete. Nothing about topic in target page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 10:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Per above" does not seem to make sense here. Was this a misplaced comment?  Did you mean it to apply to the RfD nomination above (Lindsey Kildow)?  Rossami (talk)
 * Keep. The article at this title was very recently turned into a redirect based on the opinion that the topic did not meet our notability criteria.  The article itself dates back to 2007.  I am neutral on the underlying article but 1) the practice of redirecting a non- or semi-notable sub-topic to the more notable parent is well-established and 2) I consider it a dangerous precedent when a page is turned into a redirect then promptly nominated for deletion because it's a "bad" redirect.  If the underlying article should have been deleted, it should be reverted to that state and nominated for deletion on its own merits at AfD - not buried here.  Rossami (talk) 04:34, 12 April 2012 (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.

Soylent pink



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


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

See debate at Talk:Pink slime Canuck 89 (have words with me) 00:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO 70.24.248.211 (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep used by various USDA officials and cited as having become more popular than pink slime among that scientific community.LuciferWildCat (talk) 07:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO with virtually no sources available to establish significant usage. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, used by enough media sources to justify a redirect. It doesn't take a lot of sources to justify redirects, since they aren't the same as titles. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  14:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Per the sources I listed in the section the nominator links. While it may not be the common term for the subject, pink slime takes that honor, it is definitely a used term, so a redirect is proper, as it is a valid search target. Silver  seren C 16:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep If someone is searching "soylent pink" in google, they should discover the pink slime article, not some radical activist website spreading misinformation about the stuff. Rip-Saw (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: While gathering citations of soylent pink on Wiktionary, I found Usenet posts spanning 17 years where soylent pink was humorously used with the meaning “Spam”. If a user searched for “soylent pink”, they could, and probably would, be looking up such a reference. Perhaps we should instead make a redirect page leading to both Spam and pink slime. ~ Robin Lionheart (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I put a hat note up there pointing to Spam in case that's what someone is looking for. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  19:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate per proof found by Robin Lionheart. further the hatnote is being deleted, and this usage for pink slime is a neologism, so a disambiguation page is best. 70.49.124.147 (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and Nomaskedasticity.  Horologium  (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That doesn't really hold up, since both of their votes were based on there being no sources for the term, which I have very much proven otherwise in the section the nominator linked. Silver  seren C 02:17, 18 April 2012 (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.