Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 4

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

November 4

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 4, 2009

Google cache

edit
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deletion unless anyone considers the Google cache to be notable and wants to fill in a stub. As raised on Talk:Web cache, the Google cache is not mentioned in that article, leading to confused readers (like me). It's also not really a web cache in the sense that that article defines it (automated things like Squid caches that are transparent to the user) - if anything it's a temporary variation on the web archive. Old Man of Storr (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Manuel Pérez Rodríguez

edit
The result of the discussion was delete - "The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete." From WP:RFD#The guiding principles of RfD. Killiondude (talk) 05:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted. All the sources I could find refer to him as Rodrigo, not Rodriguez. There was a stray article that listed him as Rodriguez, then both Rodrigo and Rodriguez articles got merged into the Rodriguez one, creating a mess. I cut-n-paste-moved Rodriguez article back to Rodrigo, keeping the redirect for now. In the end only Rodrigo article should stay. Geregen2 (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Emily Booth (disambiguation)

edit
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be deleted, it does not redirect to a disambiguation page; there is only one article on WP on an Emily Booth. was PRODded and prod2ed before anon rv and made this a redirect to only target. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral weak keep as the editor who made the redirect from a dab page with only one blue link. Redundancy of a redirect is not a reason for deletion, but since there appears only one article named Emily Booth, with or without disambiguation, leaving the redirect as-is would not cause harm to Wikipedia as it simply redirects to the one article of that name, and should another Emily Booth merit a standalone article, a disambiguation page would then be worthwhile. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. True, leaving it would cause no harm to WP, but the whole purpose of the RfD is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is only one Emily Booth on Wikipedia, why disambiguate when there is no ambiguity? Declan Clam (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Phil Boyer (disambiguation)

edit
The result of the discussion was delete. There were a couple other ones on this RFD subpage like this that were close, but they all seemed to be leaning slightly towards delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be deleted, it does not redirect to a disambiguation page, so could cause confusion. Was PRODded before anon rv and made this a redirect to only target. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral weak keep as the editor who made the redirect from a dab page with only one blue link. Redundancy of a redirect is not a reason for deletion, but since there appears only one article named Phil Boyer, with or without disambiguation, leaving the redirect as-is would not cause harm to Wikipedia as it simply redirects to the one article of that name, and should another Phil Boyer merit a standalone article, a disambiguation page would then be worthwhile.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. True, leaving it would cause no harm to WP, but the whole purpose of the RfD is to clean up clutter. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

David Broome (disambiguation)

edit
The result of the discussion was delete. Killiondude (talk) 04:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be deleted, it does not redirect to a disambiguation page, so could cause confusion. Was PRODded before anon rv and made this a redirect to only target. Boleyn3 (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as the one who removed the prod tag, I must state that at the time I saw the page, it was formatted as a dab page that had only one entry. Thus it was a malformed redirect - I simply applied WP:REDIRECT to correct the format... and prods do not apply to redirects. On this one I am neutral as to the issue of deletion. Redundancy is not a reason to delete a redirect, but if one claims that this is simply housecleaning, it would make sense. Also, an argument could be made that since this has significant edit history, that WP:AfD of a more viable (but recent) version of the dab page would be more appropriate. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. "Housecleaning" is the whole purpose of the RfD process. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_4&oldid=1047171788"