Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 January 21

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs) 16:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Old US-27 (between Grayling, MI and Indian River, MI) → U.S. Route 27 in Michigan (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Improbable redirect, declined speedy. Admrboltz (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The original article was about a much smaller stretch of road for which this was the right title. The page was moved so the article could describe a larger stretch of road. The redirect is part of the history behind that decision. And while in this case it was a recent enough move to have been recorded in the new page's history as well, the redirect does no harm and potentially benefits readers who are more familiar with the older name. Rossami (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is going to search for an article called this though? Also, its no where near compliant with WP:USSH. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirects do more than merely support the search engine. WP:USSH guides article titles, not necessarily redirects. Rossami (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—very improbable search term. The former section of US 27 in Michigan that is under county, not state, jurisdiction is called "Old 27", and actually extends south of Grayling to Coldwater and Tekonsha. It only has the "Old 27" name where it wasn't already given a different name like Clare Avenue in parts of Clare County or Mission Road in Isabella County. In Gaylord, it's Ogden Avenue and in Cheboygan County, it's Straits Highway right up and through the section north of Indian River that's still under state maintenance as M-27. Sorry, as a Michigan native, this is not a probable search term. No articles link to this redirect, and based on the incorrect name, none should. Imzadi 1979 → 20:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'd expand on why, but Imzadi detailed why far better than I ever could. – TMF 04:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unlikely search term. Dough4872 22:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unlikely search term with no essential page history—the pagemove is recorded in the page history of the target page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 Retarget to American. Ruslik_Zero 19:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Americans → People of the United States (links to redirect • history • stats) 

retarget, to American. This has been alternating between "People of the United States" and American every few months. A consensus discussion is needed. It has been tagged as {{R from plural}} which is only appropriate for "American", not "People of the United States". I personally think that plural forms should target their singular form. 184.144.170.159 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a related discussion is at Talk:People of the United States of America. 184.144.170.159 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm fine with either; they both make sense as a target. But I just want to point out that we have to take into account what most people would be searching for when they type in "Americans" in the search bar. WP:COMMONNAME should apply to redirects as well, and people even worldwide refer to people of the United States as "Americans", no? -- œ^™ 18:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think this makes the most sense to redirect to "People of the United States". There is definitely a distinction between a search for "American" and one for "Americans". People who type in "Americans" are more likely looking for an article on US citizens based on the most common term used to designate that group. The term "American", however, is more ambiguous. DMac (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to Disambig so that both pages will be targeted --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have a perfectly good disambiguation page at American. Why do you need a second one for the plural form? 184.144.169.126 (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Disambiguate, the backwards and forwards nature and all the associated discussion shows that there is no consensus on what the primary topic should be, therefore there isn't a clear primary topic. When there isn't a clear primary topic, the disambiguation page should be placed at the main title. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Ya but the only links on the disambig page would be an article and another disambiguation page, would this still be considered a valid disambig page? Unless we add other things like South Americans, Central Americans it won't be much of a disambig page. -- œ^™ 18:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget per nom. Standard practice is to redirect plurals to singulars when we have a page at the singular title: why should this one be treated any differently? Nyttend (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Retarget to American and tag as {{R from plural}}. There is no need to create a second disambiguation page that will contain only content that is already present in the existing one. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Ugh, I understand both positions and am having trouble figuring out which takes priority. People of the United States seems like a definite primary topic for "Americans", however, this does not hold for "American". I also agree it is best for plural and singular forms to (generally) be treated the same, but that may not be optimal since "Americans" has a more restricted meaning compared to "American", which can be adjectival as well as singular, and which can refer to proper nouns, too (e.g. American Airlines). -- Joren (talk) 07:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Daniel Saba George → Palestinian Christians (links to redirect • history • stats) 

deletion - this person is unknown, had his "page" redirected to the article on Fatah, and now to this one. Doesn't make sense. Soosim (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• disagree, this person is well known all over Palestine and many parts of the world, because he was a Christian who was killed by the Zionists on Easter Sunday, as a gift from the Zionist entity to the Palestinian Christian population. There is also a link from a respected website telling the story of how he was murdered and a picture of him--213.6.38.160 (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I believe his page must not deleted, on the over hand, we should create a new separate page for him--213.6.38.160 (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Google News turns up nothing, leaving me unconvinced that this person meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies. If someone can demonstrate this person's notability and writes an article about him, I see no harm in leaving the redirect as part of the pagehistory. If no one does so within the time that this discussion closes, however, delete the redirect. Rossami (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • disagree, google search has many articles about him and how he was murdered by some terrorists. He is a Palestinian Christian, and there is no harm to add his name at the list among other notable Palestinian Christians:
    http://www.pchrgaza.org/files/PressR/English/2006/44-2006.htm
    http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4669.shtml
    http://www.btselem.org/English/statistics/Casualties_Data.asp?Category=30&region=WB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.6.38.160 (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2011 (UTC) --213.6.38.160 (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Although a number of sources mention him in passing, or relate the details of how he was killed, the depth of coverage does not appear to reach the level required by the notability guideline for people: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
  I have removed the name from Palestinian Christians#Other for this reason, so I believe that the redirect now should be deleted. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]