Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 May 12

May 12
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 12, 2013

Schwarzrheindorf/Vilich-Rheindorf



 * 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 per Bejnar. --Salix (talk): 10:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


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

Implausible typo or misnomer Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 23:32, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep redirect, or create a stub. --Fadesga (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Unlikely search. - Camyoung54   talk  21:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it is the actual name of a northern ortsteile (borough) of Bonn. See, e.g. the article at de:Schwarzrheindorf/Vilich-Rheindorf. The two-tower church of St. Clement in Schwarzrheindorf is an iconographic cultural monument and a tourist attraction. --Bejnar (talk) 20:40, 1 June 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.

Ukrainian People's Hromada



 * 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 speedy deleted per G7. Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


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

I just created this redirect, then realised the "Ukranian People's Hromada" (e.g. as linked on the Pavlo Skoropadskyi article) can't be referring to the same thing as Hromada (political party) as that was only founded years later. DexDor (talk) 12:56, 12 May 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.

2030 FIFA World Cup



 * 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 a new section at FIFA World Cup hosts Salix (talk): 08:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * → Uruguay–Argentina 2030 FIFA World Cup bid (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

No information about this WC yet. There will presumably in due time be multiple bids to host the event, but there is an implicit favourtism in directing readers to just one Kevin McE (talk) 11:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No other potential bids yet. If another bids will appear in future then we will have the new main article instead this redirect. NickSt (talk) 13:26, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as partisan or biased redirect.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 14:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Retarget to a new section at FIFA World Cup hosts. We have an article with verifiable content about the 2030 world cup so it should get a mention on the main page for future championships, but at this stage it doesn't really need to be more than a sentence or two to say that this bid is the only one that presently exists (AFAIK anyway) and a link to the article. The present target I agree is wrong. Thryduulf (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, we don't even know if there will be a FIFA Cup then…. L.tak (talk) 20:40, 2 June 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.

Shawn Powell



 * 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 disambiguate--Salix (talk): 09:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


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

There are other Shawn Powell's, including a well-known Newsday columnist, and it is unreasonable BLP emphasis that this not unusual name links to the relatively unimportant criminal in this unsavory scheme.  DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Write an article or disambiguate. If there is only one Shawn Powell we have information on then it is right that the name redirects to that information. If there are other notable people by this name then write articles about them and dab the name and/or dab the name to the other articles where they are mentioned. Thryduulf (talk) 08:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Disambiguate/start an article -- For the record, the columnist is Shaun (which has not been created), but there is another Shawn: a recently professional football player who probably passes notability guidelines on his college career alone. Either way, this redirect does not need to, as DGG says, point directly to the one minor criminal.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  13:14, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Shaun and Shawn should be linked by redirects or hatnotes (depending on creation status) as they are very likely misspellings of each other as DGG demonstrates above. Thryduulf (talk) 14:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I entirely agree. My point simply was that if someone wants to create Shaun Powell, this RfD need not hinder them.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  00:39, 14 May 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.