Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 13

July 13
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 13, 2013.

Rio 2(2014 Sequal)



 * 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. No arguments for deletion gave any reason why the assessment in the AfD that this would be a useful redirect was incorrect or why the passage of time has changed things. Being "unlikely" is not sufficient reason to delete a redirect - the standard is plausibility, not likelihood, which was not addressed. Thryduulf (talk) 07:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


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

A very unlikely typo left from when a junk page was deleted. Edit history is useless as Rio 2 already exists. Beerest355 Talk 21:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, unlikely redirect, with multiple typos -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:09, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as unlikely and confusing redirect. Andrew327 15:41, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep but retarget. Contrary to the allegations in the nomination, this page was created as a stand-alone article in Nov 2012.  It was immediately nominated for deletion here.  The debate was closed as "redirect" - specifically, section-redirect to the current target.  I see no new evidence to justify overturning the closure of that AfD decision.   The redirect may appear "unlikely" to some readers but that is not a valid reason to delete a redirect.  It is not inherently confusing to readers nor is it in the way of other content.  It should be tagged with one of the unprintworthy tags but that's it.  That said, the page at Rio 2 (which at the time of the AfD was also a section-redirect) has since been expanded into a full article.  Personally, I think that page is still premature but until and unless it is taken down, that would be a better target for this redirect.  Rossami (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title is an unlikely search term; it uses an irregular format and missing spacing.&emsp;&mdash;  | J  ~  Pæst  | &#8202; 18:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Both age and the existence of content in the pagehistory make this ineligible for speedy-deletion.  The "recently created" clause in CSD#R3 means in the last few minutes or hours at most, not months.  Rossami (talk) 19:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: This isn't speedy deletion, it's regular deletion. Did someone nominate it for speedy deletion? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In this edit, JPaestpreornJeolhlna argued for speedy-deletion. He/she changed that opinion here.   Rossami (talk) 15:12, 16 July 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:West Germany squad 1972 Summer Olympics



 * 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. While Rossami's arguments are strong in the general case, external links to templates are uncommon as he notes, and the liklihood of internal revisions using this template being restored diminishes over time so they don't in this case outweigh the arguments to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 07:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)


 * → Template:West Germany football squad 1972 Summer Olympics (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Delete because this template does not serve a purpose any more. When the template was moved, this redirect was created but in the meantime all articles that use this squad template use the moved version. Jaellee (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Strong delete this is an exceedingly biased name. Football is not the entire world, and there were squads for other sports at these Olympics. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The redirect documents a pagemove of content that existed at the old title for almost a year.  The redirect captures all the inbound links, whether buried in the project history or external, and makes it easier for future editors to sort out the history of the various pages.  Link rot is an evil to be avoided whenever possible.  The old title was less specific than ideal (and the new title is a good improvement) but it is not so inherently confusing as to cause difficulty for future readers.  But to the extent that there is any potential for confusion, that is an argument to disambiguate or retarget.  Perhaps a retargetting to West Germany at the 1972 Summer Olympics would function as a disambiguation target in this case.  (And before anyone objects, there are no rules against cross-namespace redirect TO the Wikipedia space.  The prohibitions are against CNRs from the Wikipedia space.)  Rossami (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment there are no links to this redirect anymore, except related to this discussion. So link rot is not an issue here. --Jaellee (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Would I be correct in assuming that you make that statement based on the WhatLinksHere function? If so, that is an unreliable assessment.  WhatLinksHere only shows the current inbound links.  It does not show all the links that previously existed in the project history, any one of which could be restored or recreated when, for example, a page has to be reverted to clean up vandalism.  WhatLinksHere is also restricted to inbound links from within Wikipedia.  It is completely unable to identify links from outside the project. There is a practical question of how likely those old links are.  Given that it's a template, the likelihood of external links is probably small.  Given the age, I consider the risk of internal links in old pagehistories to be high and the risk of one of them being accidentally restored to be moderate.  Regardless, Redirects are cheap and (unless a redirect is harmful) it's easier to leave it in place than to worry about even a small risk of link rot.  Rossami (talk) 15:20, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per no use. Sawol (talk) 05:00, 16 July 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:R related
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 22%23Template:R related