Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 29

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

MuHammad



 * 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan2055 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 1 July 2012‎


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

Do we really need a redirect that simply has a random capital letter? Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do. This dates back to the old CamelCase days (the page was created in early 2001).  We have no idea whether or how many external links still exist to this old title but link rot is an evil we should avoid whenever possible.  Despite being a deprecated capitalization style, this redirect is clearly pointing to the correct page.  It is not creating any harm or confusion for readers.  It's existence does not add any cost to the project.  There is zero benefit to deleting it.  Rossami (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, R from CamelCase, textbook example of a redirect that shouldn't be deleted. —Kusma (t·c) 17:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Rossami. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:46, 30 June 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.

User:Sangeet Sharada



 * 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 WP:CSD. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


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

Created by mistake by moving the article to article space -  Vivvt Talk 15:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be grounds for a speedy? Nczempin (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind; it's not. Nczempin (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, if this should happen again, either WP:CSD sole author requests deletion or WP:CSD user page of a non-existent user would do. JohnCD (talk) 15:12, 29 June 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.

Currently Untitled



 * 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. Salting does not seem necessary yet, but should be considered if this gets re-created. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


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

This seems to have come from an invalid original redlink, pointing to the title of an album that was unreleased at the time.

As it is now, it makes no sense; no one would ever look for "currently untitled" and expect to find "one cold night". This should really be a speedy delete since it's so obvious, but I didn't find this reason under the sd criteria. Nczempin (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt - Should be speedied, but I'm not sure what category to put it under. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. It can not be speedy-deleted now (far too old) but the original page should have been deleted back in 2006 as a WP:CRYSTALBALL violation.  Rossami (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. This is not (and probably never was) a plausible redirect to One Cold Night. It could refer to many other artistic projects in their earlier stages, but it would not be a plausible search term for any of them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt "currently untitled" is the state of many projects when in their first phases. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete but do not salt, no evidence that it will be recreated often. —Kusma (t·c) 04:47, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete without salting. This is not a useful redirect and there is currently no target that would make it useful. Creation protection (salting), like all other forms of protections, should be used sparingly and only when necessary. In this case the title has only been used once in the history of the project, which means there is no evidence that it will be repeatedly recreated. In the absence of need, protection actually harms the project. Thryduulf (talk) 18:37, 3 July 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.

Clerkenwell (UK Parliament constituency)



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * → Finsbury Central (UK Parliament constituency) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Please can this (the page 'Clerkenwell (UK Parliament constituency)' simply be deleted? There has never been a constituency called 'Clerkenwell', and no other Wikipedia pages link to this redirect, rendering it useless. Marplesmustgo (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2012 (UTC) Anyway, in hindsight, I think that this redirect was a bad idea. As the nom points out, there has never been a constituency called "Clerkenwell", nor can I find any ref to it being informally known as Clerkenwell ... so keeping the redirect is misleading because it implies (incorrectly) that Clerkenwell was at least an informal name for the constituency. I considered whether it might be a good idea to convert it into a disambiguation page, listing all the constituencies of which Clerkenwell has ever formed a part.  However, following that approach would lead us towards creating FooBar (UK Parliament constituency) dab pages for every town, village and urban area, even if its name has been included in the name of a constituency. That seems to be to be a recipe for an unmaintainable morass of redirects, and I really don't want to go there. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Redirects are meant for being accessed through searching. Links would have been auto-fixed using a bot. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * But this makes no sense. There has never been a Clerkenwell constituency, so no-one is set to search for it. It is as if someone set up a page called Bronx Central (US Congressional District) and set it up to redirect to NY-16, claiming that someone may some day look for the mythical 'Bronx Central' and get the redirect they need. All it does is add confusion by suggesting there may have been a Clerkenwell seat. Marplesmustgo (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * According to our own article, Clerkenwell was part of the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury for 65 years. Looking at the old maps, the geographic coverage between that and Finsbury Central appears plausibly close.  The redirect was created in apparent good faith in 2007 by an established editor with a reputation for competence in UK politics.  Absent strong evidence to the contrary, I am inclined to defer to her expertise and keep the redirect . Note that not all redirects are technically correct titles for the thing they are pointing toward.  In fact, one of the primary purposes of a redirect is to help a reader who doesn't know the correct name to find the topic they are looking for.  That is the whole point of Category:Redirects from misspellings and the other unprintworthy redirects.  Rossami (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * BrownHairedGirl has changed her mind. I continue to defer.  Rossami (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry! Thanks for trusting my judgement, and apart from that you made a good case for keeping it ... but on balance I think that a delete would be better. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note. I've just notified the creator of the redirect about this discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had no recollection of I created this redirect (it was 5½ years ago), but when reminded by a note on my talk I presumed that it was as a result as of some biographical article having had a redlink, and that this led me to consider it a plausible redirect. I checked my contribs for that day, and can't see anything relevant, so that idea looks less plausible than I thought.
 * 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.

The Randumb Show



 * 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. We actually delete redirects if " there is a chance they could be notable". Ruslik_ Zero 16:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


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

Articles for deletion/The Randumb Show was closed as redirect to Pepperdine University back in 2010 but there was nothing notabile about it (student show on college TV station with no independent, reliable nontrivial coverage) so it was never included in that article. DreamGuy (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, how about a retarget to Random Acts of Comedy, tagged as a misspelling? Or So Random!? D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  01:43, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as a redirect. While the show is of very low notability at the moment, it is not completely unknown, and as the people involved in it start to make a name for themselves, such as here, then notability will grow in the same way as Footlights has. What should happen is that someone should write something on the show in the parent article - the redirect assists in that possibility. Without the redirect someone may attempt to write up a standalone article again.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  09:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it might maybe somehow become notable in the future, nobody can add it to the Pepperdine article unless reliable sources *already* exist. DreamGuy (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - If there is a chance it could be notable, keep it. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 17:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't understand. We keep things not merely because they are notable, but because someone knows that "notability will grow", or "there is a chance it could be notable"? Nczempin (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article Pepperdine University doesn't even mention the show, so it is pointless to redirect the reader to that article. The article on the show was deleted 2 years ago, so there has been plenty of time to add material about the show, if references had been found to justify its inclusion. I have no objection to e-creating the redirect if the material is added, but at this point we have misled readers for too long what is effectively a redirect to nowhere. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 2 July 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.