Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 4

June 4
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 4, 2012

townhallartscentre



 * 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 there is no reason for it to point to one particular town hall art centre. Ruslik_ Zero  16:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * → Town Hall Arts Center (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Was tagged for speedy-deletion under R3 but is much too old for that criterion to apply. This is a courtesy nomination to see if regular deletion is appropriate. Rossami (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, six years old, highly likely that external websites link to this. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  03:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Google reports no links to it and it's misspelled to boot ("centre" vs. "center"). --Cyber cobra (talk) 08:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - no, that's not a misspelling, that's a British English variant spelling. That particular variant is frequently adopted in the US by "artsy" organizations trying to imply either age or sophistication.  See, for example, The Arts Centre of West Virginia or The ArtCentre of Plano, TX.  Note also that the inbound google search that you ran has been extensively tested in other cases and was shown to miss significant numbers of known existing links (and it can never show offline links at all).  That test could disprove the hypothesis that a link is unused but it can not prove the hypothesis.  Rossami (talk) 13:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unnecessary and if it is used I don't think it should link to one particular town hall art centre. There may be other. Bin it - not worth keeping. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Unnecessary typo, not worth keeping.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 08:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, per Dondegroovily - Tideflat (talk) 02:04, 11 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:Fpalmertree



 * 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 deleted WP:CSD. After a chain of moves, the target was deleted as copyvio. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * → Steve Charles, MD (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]
 * → Steve Charles, MD (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Left over from move from User name space to wikipedia project space. Not appropriate. Hasteur (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * nominations merged Rossami (talk)


 * Interesting. Looking at the edit history, I think the second destination ("Wikipedia:Steve Charles, MD") could be speedy-deletable under criterion G7 since Lunaweb moved the page there, then immediately moved it away.  That immediate self-move seems to me to be the functional equivalent of a page-blanking.  (It would have been more clear if he/she had then updated the original site to resolve the double-redirect.)  The first redirect from userspace to mainspace is allowable in theory (though the reverse, a redirect from mainspace to userspace, definitely is not).  Regardless, the current target is tagged as a probable copyright violation.  It also has many earmarks of a COI page.  If the target is deleted, both redirects will follow automatically.  Rossami (talk) 23:06, 4 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.

Peaks over 1400 m



 * 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


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

Totally misleading and useless, if I typed "peaks over 1400 m" into the search box I would want an article about peaks over 1400 m, not peaks over 14000 ft. I don't see how this is an allowed or constructive use of redirects. Previously deleted under CSD R3 but restored by. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  08:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. A non-US reader who has heard of a "fourteener" and has a vague idea about the concept but is not sure of details might well look for "peaks over 1400 meters".  The redirect takes them to the correct page where they learn that the definition of a "fourteener" is based on feet, not meters.  That is in keeping with our mission as an encyclopedia - to help people find the articles they need to learn.  And, yes, we have many redirects which are technically incorrect but which take readers to the proper page.  That's the entire premise behind R from incorrect name and the other unprintworthy redirect categories.  Rossami (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If they'd heard of a "fourteener" but weren't sure of details, wouldn't they be better off searching for "fourteener"? Meanwhile someone actually searching for "peaks over 1400 metres" is left with the wrong article. We shouldn't be misleading people who can use search functions in a logical manner at the expense of people that cannot. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  14:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, misleading. Searches for "peaks over 14" and "peaks over 14000" both find the target, but "1400m" has really nothing to do with the targte at all. —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and it is a completely useless search string. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete it's not 1400yd, it's 1400ft, so it's not even close. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually 14000 ft, about 4,267.2 m. TimBentley (talk) 22:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a typo actually. (I missed a zero on the ft) ; Still the point is that 1400yd =/= 14000ft =/= 1400m ; and 1400m ~= 1400yd, if you were generous. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:36, 7 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.

King Old Guy the Bastard



 * 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, speedied by User:Boing! said Zebedee, procedural closure. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  19:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * → Edward I of England (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. Nonsensical insult created by a former admin. (What, no speedy criteria?) Clarityfiend (talk) 05:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment you can try db-attack... 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * or db-g3. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  08:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense redirect.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 23:58, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete According to db-g10 and db-g8 and maybe db-g3.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 15:36, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I can see the justification for G10 (attack pages) and G3 (vandalism), but I don't see how G8 (non-existent target) is relevant here? Thryduulf (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mistake.-- Ankit Maity Talk Contribs 16:12, 10 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.

Talk:Casein/Archive1



 * 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 withdrawn by nominator. 17:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * → Talk:Casein/Archive 1 (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete. Unneeded now that the page is moved to the standardised name. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment "/Archive1" is the old standard form, lots of very old archives use/used that format. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, absolutely harmless. May be useless, but that is not an argument for deletion. —Kusma (t·c) 07:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As the anon notes, that format without the spacing was the norm for a very long time and is in very common use.  Readers knowing that convention often look for it directly.  More than that, many of us created links to some of those old discussions.  There is absolutely no justification for breaking all those links over a minor style convention change.  Rossami (talk) 13:43, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdraw as nominator. Don't agree with the keep !votes but lets all move on. Plenty to do and all that. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:55, 6 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.

THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA



 * 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * → Uranium mining in Namibia (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

delete. Recently created redirect that is an implausible search string. Has been previously deleted but subsequently restored. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Agree with nominator. The redirect is superfluous. That said, I support the addition of well-sourced environmental impact content within this and/or other mining articles. Rosiestep (talk) 02:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, why in hell was this restored? There was a clear consensus in Articles for deletion/THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA to keep the moved and improved article and delete this redirect. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  07:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Welcome to the world of WP redirects. Every redirect ever created is hoarded... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:51, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in order to comply with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA. The decision to move the content was entirely reasonable and in keeping with the Manual of Style for article titles.  That is not, however, sufficient justification to delete a redirect which is neither harmful nor confusing to readers.  So far, no reason for deletion that matches policy has been offered.  Being "superfluous" is a value judgement based on how you navigate the wiki and is explicitly not a reason to delete a redirect.  Rossami (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Policy and rationality don't always intersect. Keeping this redirect is the equivalent of keeping a scrap of paper with an erroneous statement for time immemorial. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral, Rossami's got a point, now that the redirects been here, it should stay, but the admin who closed the AfD should be trouted for not deleting it then. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  21:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I did delete it and then Rossami restored it, so I reject your trout. - filelake shoe &#xF0F6;  21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed that Filelakeshoe deserves no trout. In my defense, the AfD was not noted in the deletion rationale.  The title clearly did not qualify under CSD#R3.  I'll also note that the AfD participants discussed only the fate of the article, not of the title.  Filelakeshoe's closure is the first reference to it as a redirect.  Rossami (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The Afd outcome was to delete the redirect. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Is search case sensitive? If it is, delete, since there's no reason to have an ALL CAPS REDIRECT FOR SEARCH. CarniCat (meow) 05:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Searches are not case sensitive for the purposes of this, arhh, case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The search engine built into Wikipedia is no longer case-sensitive. A number of other mechanisms by which readers navigate the wiki are case-sensitive, however.  Remember that redirects do more than merely support our internal search engine.  Rossami (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What are these reasons, and do they make it worth keeping the redirect? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Not harmful at all. It redirects to a logical place. Tideflat (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would argue that it is "harmful". It is yet another page that needs a bit of attention every now and again, it is "false advertising" with respect to WP content, the topic of "THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA" is easily found on a google search, and per User:Alan Liefting/Redirects are costly. Note that there is only a snippet of info about "THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF URANIUM MINING IN NAMIBIA" in the target article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Please explain exactly what ongoing attention a redirect like this requires. Rossami (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * protection from vandalism, endless visits by curious editors who scratch their heads to figure out what it is for, occasional Tfds and the interminable discussions over its merit..... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I am watching it now, which should protect it from vandalism somewhat. The redirect is very easy to see why it is pointing where it is, so that shouldn't be a problem. And if nobody wanted to delete harmless redirects then the discussions should pass quickly with out much work. Tideflat (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as unlikely redirect. I can't see any licensing compliance issues here: all edits appaear to be correctly attributed in the moved article's history. -- The Anome (talk) 21:55, 18 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.