Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 February 17

The result of the discussion was Delete. List of Hindi and Urdu authors isn't really part of the nomination and also documents a page move.Tikiwont (talk) 11:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't appear to be a useful combination, List of Hindi language authors and List of Urdu language writers are separate articles —Snigbrook 23:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am the editor that turned this into a redirect. It was originally an article, but clearly was duplicating content. I created the redirection based on the existence of List of Hindi and Urdu authors[1]. I have no objection to deleting this redirect. It doesn't seem to make sense given that Hindi and Urdu lists have been split out. -- Whpq (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly there are two equally valid targets, but it is also clear that this would be unacceptable as a disambiguation page. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate I don't see why it can't be a disambiguation? There is no minimum size (other than two, of course).--Ipatrol (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would be the basis of the disambiguation? A conjoined fusion of two dissimilar categories? In this case, it would be more logical to keep the two topics separate as the only common term in this case would be "author". 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anyone entering this long form should already have tried Hindi authors and Urdu authors which will have delivered the appropriate articles. --Bejnar (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Disambiguate - Makes sense, and would help if the article has been linked to off-wiki from which time it was a join list (yes, for redirects, arguing useful is good). This way a user gets a page that links to both pages, instead of a 404. This is why we have redirects and disambiguation. --Cerejota (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not give them just an empty 404, it provides a list of articles where the search terms appear. --Bejnar (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It would be a semi-logical disambiguation, if urdu was capitalized... Tavix (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - this is pointless as a redirect, and there is no basis for converting it into a dab page as there is no commonality between possible listed article names or article topics. Bejnar said it best - no one would search for both Hindu and Urdu authors in one listing except to find a single article covering both... but each has its own instead, and most likely a reader would be looking for one or the other, but not both. B.Wind (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Do not disambiguate this page (what follows is hopefully a clearer explanation than before). Disambiguation pages are for cases where more than one article could sensibly be given the same title. In this case, we would need at least two articles that would both make sense if they were called "Hindi and urdu authors". That is not what we have. Brian Jason Drake 02:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After examining the links to the page and the page's history, and considering the discussion above, in particular, the apparent lack of any good arguments aside from delete, this seems like the best option. If we do go on to delete this page, let's delete List of Hindi and Urdu authors too. Brian Jason Drake 02:29, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete.Tikiwont (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are misleading redirects since the article -logy does not contain a "list of ologies" any more. ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a pointless "List of" redirect. Tavix (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no list exists at the target of the redirect fr33kman -s- 05:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted. Should have been removed as part of the AFD closure per G8. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fredric Shapiro is not Fred R. Shapiro. This is really a CSD-G8 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro. THF (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as double redirects where bypassing would not be appropriate given the middle name/initial (Fred Shapiro redirects to Fred R. Shapiro). Fredric_A._Shapiro (which redirects to the same target) can also be deleted for the same reason. In the interests of transparency, I will say that I removed the {{db-g8}} tag and contacted THF about this as G8 does not appear to apply in this case. The discussion can be seen here and here. Richard⁰⁶¹² 17:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, same reason as below. Robofish (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it can be argued that CSD G8 still applies as this redirect was dependent on an article that no longer exists. I suggest that asking the admin who closed the AfD would cause all of the redirects that relied on the now-deleted article to be G8'd. As it stands, not only is this a double redirect, this one has nowhere to go. Time to put it out of its misery... as well as the similar ones below. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:22, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Deleted. Should have been removed as part of the AFD closure per G8. -- JLaTondre (talk) 01:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fredric Shapiro is not Fred R. Shapiro. This is really a CSD-G8 per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Shapiro. THF (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Fredric A. Shapiro, btw. THF (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as THF mentioned, this is dependent on a deleted article (Fred Shapiro has been recreated as a redirect to Fred R. Shapiro - and that redirect should be protected against article recreation). The last time I checked, the nommed redirect is in fact a double redirect via Fred Shapiro. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both - as the IP above notes, these are remnants of the deleted article Fred Shapiro, which was turned into a redirect. Fred R. Shapiro does not use the name Fredric, and so these redirects are meaningless. Robofish (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 11:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, accidently created. Jackal4 (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and tag with {{R from title without diacritics}}. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (after reading comment by Carlossuarez46 below) Delete - the lack of diacritics, plus the "u" instead of the "o" pushes this a little too afield from the realm of useful. One or the other would be OK, but not both. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not all users know how to type the accented e, this allows people to find the article without having to get the name exactly right. Redirects like this are standard for articles with diacritics in their titles. Robofish (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unlikely to be typed with a "u" rather than an "o" not mentioned by those above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carlos. Tavix (talk) 00:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete althoug normally a very useful redirect as many users will not place the accents on the words and therefore the English alphabet letters would be useful, the U in place of the O is likely not to be searched on. fr33kman -s- 05:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was restore article and take to WP:AfD as another forum is needed for the discussion of the suitability of the subject to Wikipedia (non admin close) B.Wind (talk) 02:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this redirect. The Transformational leadership council is a private members' club of the self styled great and good motivational speakers, and is used solely for promotional purposes. We have an editor who has major COI issues and pushes POV wherever the TLC redirect page points. TLC articles have been speedily deleted often form WP as having no notability. This is simply using Wikipedia as an advert. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Revert to the pre-redirect version (anything beyond that, in particular, questions of notability, really ought to be discussed somewhere else). The target article seems to say nothing that justifies the redirect. Brian Jason Drake 14:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article version, per Brianjd above. A redirect doesn't seem appropriate here; it's either have the article, or nothing (and anyone who prefers the latter is welcome to take it to AFD). Robofish (talk) 21:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article and take to WP:AfD for further discussion. While the previous version is completely unsourced, there may be something salvageable... but that's for another forum on another day. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question has TLC been to Afd before? If so, then just delete this. --Bejnar (talk) 06:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reference to an AfD of Transformational leadership council mentioned in the history, the discussion page (in fact, it's redlinked), or the logs. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Transformational leadership council is a private members' club of the self styled great and good motivational speakers, and is used solely for promotional purposes. So? Brian Jason Drake 11:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We have an editor who has major COI issues and pushes POV wherever the TLC redirect page points. Are you referring to Raymondaaron (talk · contribs) (a relevant discussion)? I see no evidence that he is related to the contributors to this article, nor can I see any evidence that any other contributor could be the one to which you refer. Brian Jason Drake 11:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see User_talk:Raymondaaron#Time_to_have_some_fun.21 noting the section: "Transformational Leadership Council Good advice, Fiddle Faddle. And, I already have a goal. I am on the Board of directors of Transformational Leadership Council and have been asked to create a Wiki article. Unfortunately, whenever I attempt to launch the article, I am redirected to "Jack Canfield" and I do not know what to do to undo the redirect or correct whatever is the issue. As an administrator, can you detect what the problem is so that I can create the article. I would greatly appreciate it -- and TLC is definitely notable and the article will be "flat" and there will be LOTS of verifiable references. I have learned my lesson. Raymondaaron (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)Raymond Aaron" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article and take to WP:AfD per editors above. Personally I favour the redirect to Jack Canfield, (which does mention the TLC and can be supported with references[2]) however AfD is a better forum to discuss such issues. --Rogerb67 (talk) 12:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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