Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 January 1

January 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 1, 2012

Presumption of validity; utility in patent law in Canada



 * 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 08:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * → Presumption of validity in Canadian patent law (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Suggested deletion. The article was originally created as part of Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/Fall 2011/Intellectual Property: Copyright, Trademark and Patent (Ariel Katz). I have just split the article into Presumption of validity in Canadian patent law and Utility in Canadian patent law. I have not deleted the redirect myself, since I don't want to disrupt the Canadian Education Program course too much for now. But maybe I am too cautious... Any thoughts? --Edcolins (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: the hit count is in noise range, the title is synthetic. If any external site has a link there, it will only benefit from deletion, as it would help in target refinement. Actually, I don't get why those topics were covered on the same page, they are rather loosely related (no more then WP:V and WP:RS). &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. This is another case where we would use a disambiguation page if there was a single term to cover the two topics, as we normally do when articles are split into different sections. We could do with a special type of dab page to help people who follow old links and bookmarks as a service to our readers. Doubly so in cases like this when deletion is proposed less than a day after the topics are split. Thryduulf (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But there is no common term in those two new articles... Actually, the common meaningful words on topic are patent law and Canada. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's my point. If there was a common term we'd keep a page around to help readers who followed old links, bookmarks, etc, so why should we not help readers when we split other pages as well? I agree this is not supported by current disambiguation ethos (which doesn't seem particularly focused on helping readers, more on consistent looks) but it's something I think we should do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would support You if stats suggested any amount of human readers, but it seems that the only readers of this page are bots. I wasn't very accurate at reading Your reply. I fully agree with You on this issue. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. The editor (User:Aleemabdulla) who created the article wrote on my talk page:
 * "I'm the guy who created the Presumption of validity; utility in patent law in Canada page, and I absolutely agree that it should be split. The reason I created it that way was because of how the course that I wrote it for is set up. I'm not sure that the professor will locate the entries if the original page is deleted, so please don't get rid of it until January. After that, go for it. There are actually a couple of articles that were written for that class that could be split in January. Thanks!"
 * I don't think that we should keep the entry just to help the professor (User:Relkatz) locate it. I have changed the table "Assignments topics" on the course page (here). This should be enough. And, if necessary, the student (User:Aleemabdulla) could inform his/her professor (User:Relkatz) about the situation. By the way, another topic belonging to the same course (i.e., Introduction to trademark law in Canada; passing off) was just deleted without much discussion (or no discussion at all). --Edcolins (talk) 13:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That article was speedily deleted under criterion WP:CSD for duplicating the trademark article, so the situation isn't the same. Is the professor aware of School and university projects? Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with you, Thryduulf, the situation is not the same. However, the student's concern is the same, see : "Moreover, I've been asked to cover this particular topic on Wikipedia for one of my Law classes, for which I will get a grade, so it's important that my contribution be taken into account." See also, , . Otherwise, I don't know whether the professor is aware of School and university projects. --Edcolins (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding students getting a grade for adding a specific article to Wikipedia, "aarrgghh"! Avoiding putting the students between a rock (their assignment) and a hard place (Wikipedia policy and processes) is one of the reasons WP:SUP was created! Thryduulf (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Relisted &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:52, 1 January 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.

Lowest common factor



 * 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 dabify. RA  (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


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

When do "lowest" become "greatest"? Quest for Truth (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep: the current target explains how to determine the greatest divisor in a way that makes easy to get, how to determine the lowest common divisor; thus it's useful, unless better target exists. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about Lowest common denominator? --Quest for Truth (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or dabify: LCF is a confusion between GCF and LCM. It should therefore either be a little dab or a redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 18:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC).

Relisted. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:49, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * In Russia LCF is a topic in math schoolbooks. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In Russia LCM and GCD are a topic in of math textbooks. I have heard about LCF. Ruslik_ Zero 14:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dabify per User:Rich Farmbrough. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 06:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A dab to GCF and LCM is also a good idea. --Quest for Truth (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Made one below the rfd. I think the right wording is LCF may be confused with the following mathematical terms but I guess may refer to seems to be more appropriate.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is only creates confusion. There is no such thing as Lowest common factor. The proposed dab page does not satisfy requirements set in WP:DAB. Ruslik_ Zero 14:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Could You please be more explicit on assumed failing requirements? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dabify or convert to set index. People should be able to find what they are looking for, we do have R from mispelling. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:21, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to 1 (number) since that's always the smallest factor of any given number (or at least of any number you're likely to ask about). Who said we can't be like WolframAlpha?  -- N  Y  Kevin  @073, i.e. 00:44, 26 January 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.

Plastic deformation in solids



 * 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 07:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


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

Delete; criteria = G6 Technical deletions; reason = Article was eventually merged with Plasticity (physics) as suggested by User:Abecedare on 19:35, 3 July 2009 during earlier discussion of Articles for Deletion. The remaining article contains only a redirect with no significant talk, is redundant to article Plastic deformation which also redirects to Plasticity (physics), and clutters search results on the subject. I am cleaning up links to this rfd article now. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 08:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:MAD as admitted by the nominator, it was merged, therefore it per WP:GFDL, the edit history needs to be kept around. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 05:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:RFD#1, the page has useful history, which has to preserved in accordance with WP:GFDL. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talk about my edits? 10:50, 12 January 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.

Plasticity of materials



 * 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 08:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


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

Delete this redirect is one of several similar names that clutters search results on the subject. There are no articles that link to this redirect. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 09:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep both as a valid search term and per linked AfD outcome. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid reason for deletion. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:55, 1 January 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.

List of Fred Episdoes



 * 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 15:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


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

Delete, what I think is an unlikely spelling error, there is already List of Fred episodes, List of Fred Episodes, List of FRED episodes, and Fred Episodes. 117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: though we have a documented plausibility of this typo and a relatively high traffic, it might sound unnecessarily offensive for the speakers of Slavic languages. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I was unaware. 117Avenue (talk) 23:46, 2 January 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.

Frlexd



 * 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 14:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


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

Delete. I have no idea what the origin of this word is, or if it is even related to the target article. 117Avenue (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Completely unrelated to redirected page. --Jamcad01 (talk) 06:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: another pest from Facebook. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't believe that is the origin of the word. All wikipedia articles are mirrored on Facebook, and available for "liking". 117Avenue (talk) 23:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Still DuckDuckGo gives no results on the word and Google throws out social pest. Be it Facebook or not, it must have originated in social networks. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:49, 3 January 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.