Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 23

< Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion | Log

January 23

edit

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 23, 2011

Categories for discussion

edit
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 Deleted Articles for Creation. The remaining ones were previously deleted by JamesBWatson. -- JLaTondre (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recently created CNRs with little substantial edit histories, whose author Spanones 5 (talk · contribs) is the same as that of Red links (now currently undergoing discussion as well). This user has also done nothing otherwise constructive to the encyclopedia. Note that a few pages bearing similar titles were also deleted as cross-namespace redirects (e.g. Redirects for discussion and Proposed deletion) and Articles for creation was even salted, therefore WP:CSD#G4 may apply if there was previously a deletion discussion about them. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several of these were previously deleted as the result of RfD discussions and can probably be speedy-deleted as recreated content. The only one I will argue to defend is Articles for creation (which was also previously RfD'd but I think we got that one wrong). My argument for Articles for Creation is that it is a credible aid for brand new users who don't know how to find the correct page and who do not yet understand the separate namespaces. Rossami (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Articles for Creation per Rossami - I agree that this is an aid to very new users who don't understand about namespaces. Delete the others as recently created CNRs that add very little (if any) value to the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all In fact I have speedily deleted all of them except Articles for Creation, and I would have deleted that too but for the fact that "keep" has been suggested here. While I do understand the argument about Articles for Creation being useful to newcomers, I do not see that it is powerful enough to over-ride the policy of not having cross-namespace redirects. The same argument could just as well apply to many other Wikipedia pages, and no case has been made that this one is special. Someone using Wikipedia to view articles should not accidentally find themselves in a page intended for those editing rather than viewing Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles for Creation, too, per JBW. JohnCD (talk) 16:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-delete all, including Articles for Creation, per JBW. I see Rossami's point about the possibility of the redirect being useful to a brand-new user; however, in this same vein, the existence of the cross-namespace redirect can serve to reinforce the user's misconceptions about the namespaces. In addition, I find it unlikely that a new user with such limited knowledge of Wikipedia would find out about the AFC process from a ___location that did not link to WP:AFC. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Idiotarian

edit
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. JohnCD (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable neologism, not mentioned on target page; arguably pejorative. Previously deleted at AFD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Idiotarian. Robofish (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I concur with the AfD decision to remove the page from the encyclopedia. As a redirect, it is still a non-notable neologism. I might be more tolerant of the redirect if it were being created to preempt the re-creation of deleted content but the edit history does not show such a pattern. Rossami (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Talk:Hong Kong/Hong Kong infobox

edit
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. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely obscure and no substantial incoming links. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 23 January 2011 (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/2011_January_23&oldid=1066419241"