Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 May 8

May 8
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 8, 2012

HVT 1



 * 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 retarget to High-value target. Jafeluv (talk) 14:00, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


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

Unlikely redirect. WP:CSD may apply. – Allen4names 17:14, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment HVT = High-value target in US military jargon. This book lists bin Laden's designation as HVT 1, Task Force 121 lists Saddam Hussein.  This could possible sit as a DAB page, expanded into a list of HVT 1s, or redirect to High-value target, but probably shouldn't link only to bin Laden. --kelapstick(bainuu) 22:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget to High-value target.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget per above. Hut 8.5 22:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Retarget for the same reasons as above. --V2Blast (talk) 19:03, 14 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.

Ultra-low cost airline



 * 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. JohnCD (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * → Low-cost carrier (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

unused redirect, article redirected not mention the term விமான (talk) 13:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the edit history, the phrase is unused primarily because you orphaned it in the last few days. Regardless, being unused is not a valid reason to delete a redirect.  Remember that in an ideal world, all redirects would be orphans.  The phrase seems reasonably clear and unharmful and intuitively connected to the current target.  Why should this be deleted?  (Keep pending a better reason to delete.)  Rossami (talk) 16:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the edit history, the phrase is unused primarily because you orphaned it in the last few days. None of these used the redirect.
 * The phrase seems reasonably clear Really? How exactly ultra-low cost airline differs low cost airline? Current article no explanation. Please add objective definition of differences not being WP:OR with reliable sources to article.
 * விமான (talk) 17:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't see a compelling reason to delete it, and redirects are cheep. Further to that, VivaAerobus and Frontier Airlines describe ultra-low cost airlines/carriers in their articles, so it seems reasonable that someone may search for an ultra-low cost airline, which would direct them to the correct location (Low-cost carrier), which is part of the function of a redirect. If they are both the same topic (i.e. an ultra low cost carrier is a low cost carrier), it makes sense for one to redirect to the other.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * VivaAerobus and Frontier Airlines describe ultra-low cost airlines/carriers in their articles corrected
 * If they are both the same topic (i.e. an ultra low cost carrier is a low cost carrier) Are they same or are they not same? When Ultra-low cost airline redirect stays article needs discussion if same or not, or users confused. Please add to article with reliable sources explanations of differences of sameness if want redirect to stay.
 * விமான (talk) 05:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The point is, that while not the same, they aren't different enough to justify two different articles. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  12:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How exactly different? User expects explanation with reliable sources when follow redirect. விமான (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * While an ultra low cost carrier would provide it at a lower cost than a low cost carrier, as Dondegroovily said, they are not different enough to justify two articles.  Since a reader has enough knowledge to turn on a computer and type the word "Wikipedia" into a search engine, we can safely assume that if they are directed to Low cost carrier when they clicking ultra low cost carrier, they will be able to make this distinction on their own, without us explicitly spelling it out.  However if you would like to add a sourced section about ultra low cost carriers within the low cost carriers article, you are free to do it.  As a wise man once said, it is better to fix the damn pipe than complain about wet feet.--kelapstick(bainuu) 22:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, redirect points to exactly what a user would expect it too. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  12:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * User expects explanation with reliable sources about differences ultra-low cost airline from low cost airline when follow redirect: completely missing. You add that, and I glad to keep redirect. விமான (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep no valid reason for deletion has been presented. There is no requirement that the target of a redirect discuss or even mention the title of the redirect. This is a plausible search term and the target is the most appropriate location to send the searcher. Hut 8.5 21:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - the difference is obvious. "Ultra low-cost" = "even cheaper than low-cost". There is no particularly compelling reason to delete, or retarget, or create a new article. Dondegroovily pretty much covered it. --V2Blast (talk) 19:06, 14 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.