Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 16

February 16
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 16, 2012

Template:Sylhet Royal Roster



 * 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 nothing. Speedy deleted out of due process. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)


 * → Template:Sylhet Royals Roster (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unused redirect Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per R3. ApprenticeFan  work 12:20, 17 February 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.

Archway (cookie company)



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 17:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Unnecessary redirect  Jay Jay Talk to me 21:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This redirect is not obviously confusing or harmful to readers.  It's an alternate layout that matches the conventions on a number of other articles.  It's not the preferred naming convention - but that's what redirects are for.  "Unnecessary" is an opinion based on how you personally navigate the wiki.  It is not a reason to delete a redirect.  Rossami (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep seems like a reasonable redirect to keep, wouldn't call it necessary, but I also wouldn't call it unnecessary.--kelapstick(bainuu) 04:30, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: This doesn't seem particularly out of line, and, absent any evidence otherwise, there must be some reason (who has 1808 edits) felt the need to create it.  Note that "Archway (cookie company)" is how the subject was already listed in WikiProject Food and drink/needed and Requested articles/Arts and entertainment, so other people must have thought of it by this name too: that's pretty good evidence of a useful redirect. --Closeapple (talk) 11:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at their website, they typically refer to themselves as "Archway" not "Archway Cookies". --kelapstick(bainuu) 11:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: even if they typically referred to themselves as AWC, there still wouldn't be any good reason to delete this redirect. The lat resort (low hit count) couldn't be even determined as this redirect is so new... &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:21, 20 February 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.

Anti-government protests in Thailand 2010



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 17:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


 * → 2010 Thai political protests (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Improbable redirect created as part of a page move that was quickly undone. ThaddeusB (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: likely search term. "A prolonged series of political protests occurred in Bangkok, Thailand in 2010 from March to May against the Democrat Party-led government." (first sentence from the target, emphasis added). &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:25, 20 February 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.

Blair (Poet and Singer/Songwriter from Detroit, MI)



 * 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 17:05, 25 February 2012 (UTC)


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

I moved this to Blair (poet) about a year ago, and should have CSD'd the redirect then, not sure what the statute of limitations is, but R3 is for "recently created" redirects for implausable typos. I think this is pretty unlikely search term. kelapstick(bainuu) 08:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You moved the page in November 2009, the day after the article was first created. At that time, however, you were not the sole editor so leaving the redirect in place was appropriate in order that the previous editors could find their content at the new location.  Since that time, the redirect has created no apparent confusion or controversy.  While the previous editors have probably all found the new title by now (no guarantees, though), it is possible that external links have been created to the redirect title in the meantime.  Please remember that redirects do far more than merely support our internal search engine.  Recognizing that redirects are cheap and link rot is bad, why should we delete an unharmful redirect?  (Incidentally, the original name was a violation of our article naming conventions, not a typo.  Moving it was the right decision but it would not have qualified under CSD#R3 even if you'd nominated it immediately.)  Keep unless there is a compelling reason to delete.  Rossami (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: this name is very implausible search term and hit count is at noise level. Given no incoming links (so link rot unlikely) and low chance of recreation (deleting this redirect is cheaper then next RfD), I see no reasons to keep it. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Very implausible search term that was home to the article for only a very short time. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:47, 17 February 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.