Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 29

August 29
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 29, 2012

Nümberwang



 * 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) 22:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → That Mitchell and Webb Look (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

I doubt anyone's gonna put the umlaut in it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Harmless and consistently used 10-15 times a month, so deletion would be harmful for no gain. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, mentioned in target, people might have European keyboard setup or copy/paste the term. Siuenti (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Plausible search term, no rationale presented for deletion. Wily D 08:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Redirects are cheap and this one does no harm. As Siuenti correctly pointed out, this is a plausible search term as a copy-paste. CtP  (t • c) 23:44, 2 September 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.

Shinty-six



 * 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) 22:28, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → That Mitchell and Webb Look (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Numberwang-cruft. Not mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as completely harmless. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Redirects ~35 visitors a year, so seems to be doing some good, doesn't seem to be doing any harm => on balance, benefits outweigh costs. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 09:39, 30 August 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.

Shinty six



 * 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) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


 * → That Mitchell and Webb Look (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Numberwang-cruft. Not mentioned in target. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has existed since 2009 without causing any problems at all, what possible benefits are there to deletion? Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally I find redirects which aren't mentioned in the target annoying because I waste time looking for them. I'd prefer Wikipedia to say "sorry we don't have any information about this". Siuenti (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: Redirects ~40 visitors a year, so seems to be doing some good, doesn't seem to be doing any harm => on balance, benefits outweigh costs. - Jarry1250 [Deliberation needed] 09:39, 30 August 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.

Key to the midway



 * 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, for now as wiktionary redirect and retarget to Carny if there is agreement to mention it there. Tikiwont (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


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

Not mentioned in target Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Note (Wiktionary redirect?) There is a Wiktionary page though, key to the midway – how about Wiktionary redirect instead?
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * (title added —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC))


 * Note The target page was speedily deleted per CSD R3 following TenPoundHammer's moving of the content back to the Carny title. I have reversed that speedy deletion as the title has existed since April 2010 and the page is thus not eligible for speedy deletion. If this is kept as an internal redirect, the target would need updating to Carny. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note has itself been nominated for deletion, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30. Thryduulf (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary redirect which will enable users to find their way back to Carny if that's what they want. Siuenti (talk) 11:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note (Update/Keep) As per Thryduulf’s comments above, has been kept, as per Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 30, as a subsection of Carny – shall we update this link to  ? —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 07:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * retarget per Nils von Barth. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There appears to be some disagreement as to whether the information in question should be included in the Carny article. Most recently it was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carny&diff=511464445&oldid=510881177 removed], making the nominator's statement technically correct. We should probably get that sorted out before we decide what to do with this redirect. (I am neutral.) SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:27, 29 September 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.

Template:Mpu



 * 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * → Template:Uploaded from Commons (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Weird and unused redirect Bulwersator (talk) 19:09, 29 August 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.

STD Wizard



 * 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 No consensus to delete yet. Tikiwont (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


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

Non-notable software should not redirect to a general article somewhat related to the software. This never should have been a redirect; this should have been csd'd.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   12:36, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for now. This was originally an article that was merged into the Sexually transmitted disease article in 2011. 10 days ago this content was moved to the talk page for discussion (see Talk:Sexually transmitted disease). I don't think that discussion is necessarily concluded (apart from the initial post, all messages are dated yesterday). If the content returns, in any length, then the redirect should definitely remain (but targetted at the appropriate section), so deletion at this point would be premature. That said, I'm not sure that the main article is the right place for the content - an article related to STD information online or online diagnosis tools would be better in my non-expert opinion. However I haven't found such an article, but Category:Medical websites does exist. I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 19:53, 29 August 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.

On random processes



 * 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 as part of someone's bumby attempt to settle in here. Tikiwont (talk) 19:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


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

Proposing deletion on the same grounds as Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 28 above. The redirect was recently created and is in a form that people are unlikely to use when navigating to or searching for the target. Psychonaut (talk) 05:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - likely search term, no rationale presented for deletion. Wily D 07:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know how likely the phrase is a as a search term, but as the creator was evidently looking for content like this at this title it's evidently useful. As it's not harmful (it's not incorrect or in the way of anything else for example), then no benefits will be brought by deletion meaning this is a clear keep. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It is not by any stretch of the imagination a "likely search term". A search for "random process" or "random processes" is plausible, but not for "On random processes". It is not true that "the creator was evidently looking for content like this at this title": the creator of the page was creating one of a whole string of totally unsuitable articles, and it was later changed to a redirect after it was quite rightly tagged for speedy deletion. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral. It seems plausible to me, as a possible essay title or whatever, but doesn't seem to get any actual hits. Siuenti (talk) 12:01, 30 August 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.

====File:This is the cover art for the soundtrack Irvine Welsh's Beautiful World Ecstasy Remixes by the artist Various. The cover art copyright is believed to belong to the label, Toolroom Records, or the graphic artist(s), Mark Blamire.jpg ==== 


 * 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 Speedy delete, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * → File:Beautiful World Ecstasy Remixes cover art.jpg (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This is an implausible redirect. I corrected the link in the only article that links to the file. —JmaJeremy ✆  ✎  01:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The file was at the old name for just over a month, so the chance of incoming external links is low. Further, as it's a non-free image we don't want to encourage such external links. Thryduulf (talk) 09:42, 29 August 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.