Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 27

May 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 27, 2012

Stephen Preston (disambiguation)



 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


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

delete. Unneeded redir. It was deleted under WP:CSD R3 criteria but restored per WP:INTDAB. This appears to be a flawed rationale since WP:INTDAB does not require a dab page of this type to exist. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Nobody had looked at this page in the last 90 days until this RfD was raised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RHaworth (talk • contribs) 21:40, 27 May 2012‎ (UTC)


 * It's a new page, before 26 May it didn't exist. List of people with surname Preston should link to the redirect to make it clear that it can be ignored when fixing redirects to the disambiguation page, which is the purpose of WP:INTDAB. Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 22:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Pages should not exist in article namespace for the sole purpose of maintenance and I cannot see anything in WP:INTDAB that suggests it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's in the section "How to link to a disambiguation page". Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I can't see anything at WP:INTDAB that says we need a page of the form Stephen Preston (disambiguation) if a dab page exists at Stephen Preston. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "...link to the title that includes the text "(disambiguation)", even if that is a redirect" and "If the redirect does not yet exist, create it and tag it with R to disambiguation page." Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it now. It is at WP:HOWTODAB. So why do you think there would be any intentional links to Stephen Preston (disambiguation)? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It now has two: from List of people with surname Preston and Steve Preston. Peter&#160;E.&#160;James (talk) 00:13, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This guideline that you are following is nonsensical. It is widely ignored, makes the job of an editor even harder than what it already is, and it is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I will look into getting it revised. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What part of your work is made harder by the existence of a redirect like this? It is a well-formed redirect of a standard pattern. Pam  D  07:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. These types of redirects are required by the disambiguation guideline. If you disagree with the guideline, take it up at the talk page, don't randomly pick one of 150,000 to delete. Added to all this, even if it is deleted it will just be recreated in a few days by a bot. Jenks24 (talk) 03:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:INTDABLINK ; WP:CHEAP ; and this is a logical redirect, since if you wanted to access a disambiguation page and are familiar with Wikipedia, you should be able to reach one using a parenthetical note as your search term. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 04:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - needed for hatnote on Steve Preston in accordance with our structures. Pam  D  07:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above three comments. benzband  ( talk ) 16:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep even if some editors do not understand the sense of it. WP:INTDABLINK is both clear and sensical. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 1 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.

Day Press News



 * 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. A redlink is seen as preferable in this case. Thryduulf (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


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

Delete. We can't create redirects for media outlets (Day Pres News or DP News is a Syrian news website) that don't have their own article to the generic media of country articles. Just as we cannot redirect bands without articles to music in country articles. __meco (talk) 15:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No interest. The redirect was created because it was included in a footnote/reference. 'Day Press News' gives no clue as to its location or ownership or reliability or anything else, so an article was clearly needed to establish some basic information about the source. The red links in Media of Syria were intended to show articles needed. That is the usual way to express that situation, or at least it was. With so much going on in Syria, it seemed highly likely that someone, Syrian or otherwise, would soon create an article for this news source and others. Obviously no one could be bothered, so it seems Syrians aren't interested in their own news sources. I would have thought they'd want the wider world to know which news sources are which, government vs. private, etc., but it seems they don't care. So be it. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Methinks that they Syrians are a little bit too busy dodging bullets to write an encyclopedia entry in a language that they don't speak.  D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  02:41, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * . benzband  ( talk ) 16:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The media source is in ENGLISH and is purportedly written by SYRIANS. So you really believe no Syrians know English? Or want support for their revolution from those whose primary language is English? Try not to be so condescending, parochial and insulting next time. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 06:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, redirect is inappropriate and in this case a redlink is better. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  01:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, a redirect from a non-notable or semi-notable topic to a more notable parent topic is entirely appropriate. Many such redirects exist.  I am inclined to agree with Dondegroovily, however, that a redlink may be better in this specific case.  The notability of this company is unproven.  A redlink will give interested editors a better shot at proving or disproving the point.  Rossami (talk) 22:12, 31 May 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.

Beaver, Kansas



 * 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 converted to a (stub) article. If the nominator or anyone else still wants this deleted it can be nominated at AfD in the usual manner. Thryduulf (talk) 20:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * → Beaver Township, Barton County, Kansas (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Please delete Beaver, Kansas, because the unincorporated community is not the township. It should either be an article about the unincorporated community or deleted, otherwise we don't see it as a red link for articles that need to be created. Thanks in advance. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  19:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Write a stub - something like "Beaver, Kansas is a village in Beaver Township, Barton County, KS" D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  02:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Amazing, I ask for a simple request to "knock down a road sign", and the response is "go back and build a road". •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  12:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Stub is made. That wasn't so hard, was it? Add to it at your leisure. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  01:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Stub articles are one step above worthless, thus is why I don't do them. My view is either do them right or they should be red-linked, thus is why I asked for it to be deleted.  •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  •  14:55, 29 May 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.