Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 18

April 18
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 18, 2013

Sammy Shore



 * 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. Thryduulf (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


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

This redirect makes things confusing. The Comedy Store is not a synonym for Sammy Shore. Utuado (talk) 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Synonyms aren't the only purpose of redirects. As a founder of the club, there's some value in linking Shore's name to the club, just as musicians without standalone articles may be redirected to notable bands of which they're members. See Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 10 for a recent example. Whether or not Shore is ever going to meet notability standards of his own, linking his name to a notable comedy club gives readers some information, which is better than the nothing a redlink would give them. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2013 (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.

আখিম ম্যুলার



 * 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) 15:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Delete. Bengali ≠ German. Gorobay (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject lacks any apparent connection to Bengali language or culture, or even India more broadly. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Per above. Wilbysuffolk (Talk to me!) 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per BDD's findings.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 02:28, 24 April 2013 (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.

Georgia (state)



 * 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 the disambiguation page at Georgia. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * → Georgia (U.S. state) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

This redirect is very unlikely with the U.S. state. Both terms in the name "Georgia" as the same with the independent country in Transcaucasia and the American state are really both states. Retarget to Georgia as stated. ApprenticeFan work 13:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. Per Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 5, "Georgia State" redirects to Georgia State University, the hatnote there (proposed by me in that discussion and unchanged since) reads ""Georgia State" redirects here. For the state, see Georgia (U.S. state). For other uses, see Georgia.". If this discussion results in "Georgia (state)" being targetted at the dab page, then that hatnote should probably be reworded. Thryduulf (talk) 14:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How can you say it is "unlikely"? There were recently dozens of links to the redirect from the article namespace -- ALL of which intended the U.S. state (note: the present number appears to have been reduced recently). If this redirect is retargeted, then by the same reasoning State of Georgia and Georgia (State) should also be re-targeted and perhaps Georgia State as well and the rather improbable form Georgia, State. While it is true that the term "state" can be synonymous with "country" in some contexts, I see no reason to presume that readers typing "Georgia (state)" into the search box are looking for the country. Similarly, there is no reason to presume that editors linking to Georgia (state), which after all matches the pattern for all the other ambiguous U.S. states, are expecting to link to the country. older ≠ wiser 15:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support change of redirect target to Georgia - There is a difference between State of Georgia, something that the US State is commonly referred to in reliable sources where the country is not, and an ambiguous parenthetical disambiguation that could describe either one. Parenthetical disambiguations are supposed to be used to show the difference between two or more subjects with the same title, and it doesn't really work if both are referred to as states. - SudoGhost 16:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support targeting Georgia. This ought to redirect somewhere, even though it is ambiguous. Since it is ambiguous, it should target the disambiguation page. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support state is an ambiguous word so redirect to Georgia. Zarcadia (talk) 18:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support disambiguation to Georgia. The country is a real state, while the US state is a subdivision of the real state called the US of A . State of Georgia and Georgia (State) should also be disambiguated. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Forgive me if I have erred, but this is a redirect discussion, and everyone is saying support targeting Georgia, but the request was to target Georgia (U.S. state) (the statement is "Retarget to Georgia as stated." but the link was change the redirect of Georgia (state) to Georgia (U.S. state), which is a different target). Apteva (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The redirect currently directs to Georgia (U.S. state) and has for some time, but the change to change the target to Georgia was reverted, so this RfD was opened to see if there is a consensus to redirect the target to Georgia. I think you're referring to the RM at Georgia (U.S. state), which was a request to rename that article to Georgia (state), not to change the redirect of Georgia (state) to a different target, but that request was withdrawn.  ApprenticeFan is free to correct me if that's not the case, but that's what I believe happened. - SudoGhost 02:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * All true except that I think that a "support" in this RfD calls for having the redirect at Georgia (state) point to Georgia, which is a disambiguation page. There was someone, who has not commented here, who wanted it to stay pointing to Georgia (U.S. state). The move proposal has been withdrawn, but it would have eliminated the redirect at Georgia (state) completely, had the move of Georgia (U.S. state) to Georgia (state) taken place. Apteva (talk) 05:07, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. I have cleaned up this request, and clarified the way it looks so that it makes more sense. Steel1943  (talk) 02:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what a "support" calls for in this instance, maybe I'm missing where the problem is? - SudoGhost 07:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC) (Nevermind, I see what you meant now.) - SudoGhost 05:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Retarget to Georgia per the editors above who also suggested this option. The redirect should not be deleted; if there is no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, retarget to the disambiguation page. Steel1943  (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support retargetting to Georgia. State does not unambiguously distinguish the two Georgias, since both are a state (polity).  With no clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, we should redirect to the disambiguation page.  TDL (talk) 05:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Georgia per TDL. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to Georgia: the dab page helpfully has the two "state" interpretations pulled out into top position, and is the best place for this redirect to go to. Pam  D  12:24, 25 April 2013 (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 grunge supergroups



 * 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 Revert to article, nominate for AfD See here for AfD ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 06:39, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


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

A while back someone redirected this article to Grunge on the grounds that it was unsourced original research. However, the redirect target doesn't discuss grunge supergroups at all, making this redirect misleading. Psychonaut (talk) 11:10, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning towards recommending this should be reverted to an article and then discussed at AfD if desired. The redirection was seemingly the bold action of one user and after two no consensus discussions, I think the content deserves to be considered again which isn't something that RfD is the right venue for. I'll invite the folks at Talk:Grunge and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative music to comment here. Thryduulf (talk) 13:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Revert to article and send to AfD, per Thryduulf. Many of these bands aren't even identified as grunge. It's tempting to vote for deletion, but with previous AfDs, better to let this be judged as an article. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It was a pretty pointless article to begin with, just my two cents. I call the big one bitey (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Having examined the content of the page before it was turned into a redirect, I think it's fine to go ahead and delete it. The previous content was indeed original research and of dubious factual accuracy.  Also, that nobody reverted or otherwise contested the redirect in six months points towards consensus for the removal of the article.  However, if others feel strongly that further evidence of consensus is required I wouldn't object to restoring the article and sending it to AfD. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:03, 22 April 2013 (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.