Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 January 4

The result of the debate was speedy-deleted as a confirmed copyright violation with no useful intervening history. No opinion on whether the page should be recreated either as an independent article or as a redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect causes confusion because Leonardo de Jesus Geraldo is not a PFC CSKA Moscow player.   Jhony  |  Talk   15:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To be frank, the whole article should have just been deleted as a copyvio. -Yupik (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not possible now to delete the article as a copyvio, right?   Jhony  |  Talk   21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No idea. -Yupik (talk) 22:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted. Redirects are only useful if they redirect a user to where applicable content is located. They are harmful if they do not. A link should be blue only if we have content on it and red if we don't. The editor who added these redirects also made these edits to the target article. As can be seen, he created circular redirects with external links. There never was any encyclopedic content for these redirects. They should have been red links or targeted to where there really was information in the first place. As we don't seem to have information on they elsewhere, red links are better than false blue ones. -- JLaTondre 14:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Full explanation below. DeLarge (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following a page move to Geneva Motor Show (as per WP:NC(CN) and WP:ENGLISH), I was sorting through double redirects and came across this, and four others. A user with an interest in alternative propulsion made additions to the page in March 2007,[1] and included a list of several "green" car manufacturers. However, there was never any actual content either at the original page or the target, just a list of names and an associated external link. The redirects are therefore basically serving only to send users offsite.

If possible, I'd like to make a "group" nomination (this is my first RfD nom, so I don't know if that's procedurally frowned upon). Other redirects to be considered are at Bioessence, BioMobile.ch, Swisspirit and Consomini.ch --DeLarge (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Group nominations should really be reserved for pages where the history and underlying issues are all essentially identical. That may not have been quite the case here.
  Delete Bioessence. That keyword gets many google hits but none that I can find referring to cars. Every instance I've found so far refers to herbals and health supplements (but no specific issue with enough commonality to support a retargetting either).
  On the other hand, all the other titles trace back to pages that seem relevant to the topic of alternative energy cars. I'm not sure that this particular destination is very helpful to readers, though, because the mention on that page is so trivial. Perhaps retargetting would be a better solution if useful targets can be found. For example, according to their own website, E´mobile is actually a trade association associated with the World Electric Association (WEVA). A redirect to Electric vehicle#Electric Vehicle Organizations might be appropriate. The other three appear to be projects being worked on by HES-SO. Assuming the destination page can be reliably expanded, perhaps retargetting to that page would be appropriate. Rossami (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Kept. -- JLaTondre 14:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No pages currently use this redirect, rdr doesn't seem useful to keep.

• The target article has a whole section under the name Book of Darkness. I can easily see someone forgetting to use the when searching and using the current redirect so I don't see any reason why it should be deleted. Maybe a redirect to Reinforce (Nanoha)#The Book of Darkness may be a good idea but deletion seems to make little sense. --70.48.172.165 (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Not only does the target article have an appropriately titled section, it appears from the edit history that the content was merged in from this page. GFDL requires us to keep the attribution history of content. Given the timing, a history-merger would be feasible in this case but given that it's error-prone and time-consuming, why should we bother? Leaving the redirect in place with its history intact is a cleaner way to satisfy GFDL. Rossami (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep seems uncontentios Victuallers (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Re-target to Musharaff Moulamia Khan, Pir-o-Murshid. -- JLaTondre 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to an unexisting page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilac Soul (talk • contribs)

• Note: This nomination was then changed by user:Sergey Moskalev in this edit, breaking the nomination. Restoring the nomination so discussion may proceed. Rossami (talk) 22:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Musharaff Moulamia Khan, Pir-o-Murshid, seems to be the intended target. I've actually done this now, only to keep the page from being a speedy candidate (WP:CSD#R1). Given that the above reasoning no longer applies, it might be a good idea for the nominator to withdraw the nomination.--Fyre2387 ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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