Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 7

July 7
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 7, 2013

Janis Locas



 * 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. --BDD (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


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

This is a cross-language redirect. Since this is not useful to English readers, it should be deleted. Citrusbowler (talk) (contribs) (email me)  13:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:R #10: the existence of an article on the French Wikipedia suggests the topic would be sufficiently notable for one here. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Arms & Hearts. Redirects to non-English wikis were proposed as a speedy deletion criterion not long back and got much support but fell down on the issue of interwikis on redlinks. See Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 48. I still feel that these ought to be speedy deletable, but it seems that nobody wanting the interwikis on redlinks was actually bothered enough to take part in the relevant discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:REDLINK this should be a redlink, as there's an article of it in another language, it is a viable topic for creating an article, therefore should be redlinked. (altnernately, stubbify ) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 23:11, 7 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.

List of autostereotypes by nation



 * 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) 09:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)


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

There is no such list in the target article. Either find a better target, or delete. — This, that and the other (talk) 05:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC) 
 * This was kept for its history after Articles for deletion/List of autostereotypes by nation (2nd nomination). I don't know if anything was merged. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I considered that before making this nomination, but surely 4 years is enough time to allow for a merge to take place. The old article content does not seem worth keeping, but I'm not sure what usual community practice is in cases such as this one. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. If content was merged to another page, we have to keep the pagehistory behind this redirect in order to comply with the attribution requirements of GFDL and CC-BY-SA.  Unless a redirect is actively harmful or confusing to readers, our usual practice is to keep the redirect regardless because it's the easier route to compliance.  This one doesn't seem sufficiently harmful to justify deletion.  Rossami (talk) 23:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, no content was ever merged anywhere, and rightly so. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per Rossami unless it can be conclusively shown that no content was ever merged. I agree that there's no obvious evidence of a merge having taken place (though I haven't trawled through every revision), but the search term is plausible and the target relevant enough that keeping this because it might be necessary for attribution purposes seems the best solution. – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 14:12, 7 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.

Provisional Government of Free Vietnam



 * 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 withdrawn by nominator. --HNAKXR (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * → Government of Free Vietnam (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Made up by a suspected sockpuppet, never used in history. HNAKXR (talk) 03:04, 7 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.