Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 1

February 1
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 1, 2013




 * 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 Bharat. Non-admin closure. — This, that, and the other (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

भारत

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

Retarget to Bharat. This is the word "Bharat" in the Devanagari script, so it should redirect to the Bharat article instead, because the article with the same name Romanized no longer redirects to India. GSMR (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy retarget per nominator. I don't see this as at all controversial so I'd be happy for you to just go ahead and do it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would have retargeted it a few days ago if I had known Bharat existed. Be bold! Gorobay (talk) 20:28, 1 February 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.

According to Wikipedia



 * 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.  Wizardman  23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * → Wikipedia as a press source (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Cross-namespace, purpose unclear, no links within Wikipedia other than from a disambiguation page where addition was possibly only as a dictionary definition of "ATW". Unless there is a reason to keep this, retarget to Reliability of Wikipedia. Peter&#160;James (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

As I only vaguely remember why I created this redirect, I support any change or retargeting that will make this useful. :) Trivialist (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete XNR -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 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.

90025



 * 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.  Wizardman  23:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


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

This is a redirect from zip code. I'm not sure why this exists, because the original article was supposedly speedied and was apparently recreated and redirected. Having checked other zip codes, though, they don't have articles and don't redirect. Therefore, this seems to be something we don't do redirects for, so it should be deleted. MSJapan (talk) 15:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or disambiguate if there are other uses of the number. Zip codes are plausible search terms and this redirects gets more hits than background noise so it is used. I've only found a couple of previous discussions about zip code redirects: Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 July 1 which ended with "disambiguate" and Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 June 6 which was kept. There is consensus that almost all zip codes are not notable enough for articles, but notability is not relevant to redirects, they are kept if they are plausible search terms or useful for another reason and are not harmful. This redirect is not harmful and is used as a search term so there is no benefit to deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep plausible search term. Many British post codes seem to exist as disambiguation pages or redirects -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:58, 2 February 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.

Template:Do



 * 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.  Wizardman  02:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


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

Obscure use for a very short redirect that can easily be mistyped in place of the (rather more common) od. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This was the original title of the template and so in the absence of other factors we should be keeping it to maintain the attribution history. It has existed as a template or redirect since 2008 with no harm, and as there are may other templates that can by typoed just as easily I'm not seeing why this should be special. It's not as if you should be substituting so fixing a typo you make is just a matter of a 10 second edit. Thryduulf (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete and then redirect to todo -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 07:58, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Why is deletion necessary when it could just be retargetted? Afaics there is nothing problematic in the history? Thryduulf (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just to remove the history of the redirect to Disharmonic Orchestra -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 13:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But why is that necessary? Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * delete, the edit history is in Template:Disharmonic Orchestra, which includes the move, so nothing to save here. Frietjes (talk) 20:24, 20 February 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.