Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2008 September 17

The result of the debate was No consensus, neither to delete the redirect at this point nor about what else to do about it. An AfD might be possible but could also wait until somebody actually feels the need to resurrect the article that is currently archived under the redirect.Tikiwont (talk) 09:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no discussion of stereotyping on the target article, infact the only use of the word was a link back to this redirect (removed). Jimmi Hugh (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its a useful POV redirect indicating such info could be added.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilikepie2221 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 17 September 2008
  • Comment How is it useful if the content isn't on the page? Adding the content purely to satisfy the redirect seems like a negative reason to add infomration, which if necessary, would have been added already. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is an article that was changed to a redirect just four days ago [1]. Deleting this as a redirect is effectively the deletion of the article, without appropriate discussion. I suggest restoring the article from the history of the redirect and putting that up for AfD if anyone feels necessary. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it isn't... I had nothing todo with creating the redirect, and infact didn't even check the dates on the history when makeing sure it hadn't simply been vandalised. This is an RfD, so you should discuss it as such. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 00:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - no one will type this in.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert creation of redirect; take to AfD as a POV fork. The editorial/contribution history is nontrivial, much more than that of a "typical" redirect. Should for some reason the redirect is kept, retarget to Stereotype (although "racism" would also be a valid target for such a redirect). 147.70.242.40 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stereotyping a race is not indicative of racism.... but way to be a tool. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left over from deleted template and unlikely to be useful -- Suntag ☼ 15:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Old old old. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Fine with me. --Reinoutr (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per TenPoundHammer. I don't even know what vfd is... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was Votes for Deletions the old name of Articles for Deletion. --76.71.209.20 (talk) 21:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as being obsolete, along with being unused. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 02:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was restored the original article, article was in the process of being written when another editor redirected it. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The emotions info box includes desire as one of the emotions we want to cover. But when you try to create a Desire (emotion) article, you can't, because it is set to redirect you to the disambig page, which covers the philosophical, fictional, lyrical, etc. senses of desire. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 19:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just add the content and replace the Redirect, the Redirect won't even work while the RfD is on the page. This is a keep, as the actual article doesn't need deleting. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment For the section header, I have renamed the target to Desire as that is the target, not itself. Also, keep and write your text over the redirect. --Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.

The result of the debate was already deleted. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you delete it, that was my mistake that in 2006, Tampa finished a record 61-101, not 66-96 as for 2007. BlueEarth (talk) 02:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per author request and so tagged. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.