Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 April 8

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. No need to draw this out ThaddeusB (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:EBERT → Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirect seems to have been created only to make some sort of point in a discussion. I fail to see any sort of utility here - redirects are cheap, but not that cheap. --Bongwarrior (talk) 13:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:POINT. If whomever wants to write an essay about that decision's effects on WP:ITN then it might be a suitable redirect there, but it's present form is not beneficial. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POINT. --IP98 (talk) 13:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as pointless as well as pointy. LadyofShalott 13:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sad waste of the community's time. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons given. 331dot (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have to disagree that this should be deleted, although perhaps it needs an essay behind it rather than a link, or should point to Ebert Precedent instead. I am open to suggestions. μηδείς (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write your essay, create a new Wikipedia:Ebert Precedent instead, and see how the community feels about the essay. A redirect to a discussion at ITN which will soon be made invalid by the archive bot isn't helpful to anyone. --IP98 (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, please do calm down, AGF, and give me some time, I have enough trouble going on in the real world that's none of your business as it is. I will. Do me a favor, and talk me, 98, as a reminder. μηδείς (talk) 15:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Medeis is being WP:POINTY. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.--Johnsemlak (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Thanks, 98. Whoever wants can speedy delete this, an essay doesn't seem the right response to the issue at hand, and Ebert deserves better. μηδείς (talk) 18:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Persons allegedly associated with terrorism in the "War on Terror" who have lived in the United States → Template:AmericanTerrorism (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This template is just a redirect--with a really long and unwieldy name. Nothing links here. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the target suffers from WP:RECENTISM, perhaps the redirect should be reversed since there's no Timothy McVeigh or Atlanta Olympics Bombing, etc. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "War on Terror" refers to post-9/11. McVeigh and the 1996 Olympics predate that. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the current template name implies a scope of all American terrorism, not just that which is associated with the War on Terror - McVeigh for example was an American terrorist. Thryduulf (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wow, that is a long name, even for a template redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.