Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2006 August 6

Abstain: User:Atamari claims that the redirect doesn't match the target and that they're actually in different cities. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pointed-to article was prodded and deleted and this link was orphaned because of it. --ColourBurst 15:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadadezer is

• Delete. The Hadadezer article shows no known predecessor for Ben-Hadad II. BigNate37_T·C 20:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely generic redirect with no context. The target article does not cover only Chapter 1 of the document. --Gavia immer 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Joe 03:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it has useful history. It documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no requirement to keep page move history. -- JLaTondre 01:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely generic redirect with no context. There are many "Bill of Rights" documents that a reader might be seeking instead of this one. --Gavia immer 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Joe 03:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because it also documents the pagemove. Rossami (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no requirement to keep page move history. -- JLaTondre 01:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely generic redirect with no context. Points to an article about the entire document, not specifically chapter 1. --Gavia immer 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a likely search term. Rbraunwa 02:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has useful history and was used to create the current articles. Rossami (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no edit history to keep. Original content was a copy of the document that was replaced with a redirect. -- JLaTondre 01:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely generic redirect with no context. Points to an article about the entire document, not specifically chapter 2. --Gavia immer 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a likely search term. Rbraunwa 02:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As above, this has useful history. Rossami (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no edit history to keep. Original content was a copy of the document that was replaced with a redirect. -- JLaTondre 01:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely generic redirect with no context. Points to an article about the entire document, not specifically chapter 3. --Gavia immer 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As above, this page has history. Rossami (talk) 20:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is no edit history to keep. Original content was a copy of the document that was replaced with a redirect. -- JLaTondre 01:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

text=Extremely generic redirect with no context. Generic discussion of chapters is not likely to be what the reader is looking for. --Gavia immer 17:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. Per nom. Morgan Wick 03:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Someday soon there'll be a movie called Chapter III, or a "Chapter III" of a horror movie series, or something. YHIHF. --zenohockey 01:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect was PRODed by

• Keep. Can't possibly cause any confusion. Someone who overestimates WP's fragmentation may think to search for the unusually specific term. Indeed, two IP addresses and a named editor thought it merited its own article, and at one point it was a pretty good stand-alone article. --zenohockey 02:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as useless redirect and non-notable fancruft in page history. On the
  Imperial Vanquisher Hoverdyne is one of very few blue links in an article packed with red links, list-style. The only articlespace link to this former-article-turned-redirect is from the article it is redirecting to, which is not useful. Personally, I think the whole article in question should be stripped of redlinks: StarCraft fancruft is contested and unpopular at Wikipedia, there is no way this game's fancruft will fare better. BigNate37_(T) 22:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep because it documents the contribution history of content which was merged into another article. Preservation of contribution history is a requirement of GFDL. Rossami (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was redirected without merging per history and there's no content in target from it. -- JLaTondre 01:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Zenohockey. -- JLaTondre 01:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect obviously makes no sense 24fan24 02:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete as recently-created implausible redirect (
  CSD R3), also blatant vanity. BigNate37_T·C 16:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The term being redirected no longer exists --Dumarest 19:27, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Since Dumarest moved the page from Trencher (bread) to Trencher (tableware), this is speediable under
  RFD}} template on the redirect in question, I've placed a {{db}} tag on it. BigNate37_T·C 16:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as useful - despite the fact that the page has been moved, it says that some trenchers were made of stale bread (which I think I recall as being correct). Why not keep this as a useful redirect for the search engine, then? -- nae'blis 16:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is unlikely to be typed in exactly as a search term, and we have Trencher already which is a disambiguation. BigNate37_T·C 16:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• At this point in the discussion, the page was speedy-deleted with the comment "Housekeeping". The speedy-deletion was contested and the page undeleted in order to allow this discussion to continue. Rossami (talk)
• Keep because the page's history documents the pagemove. The "housekeeping" speedy-deletion criterion does not apply to pages like this. Rossami (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've no problem with further discussion (I didn't delete the article though I did tag for speedy and close the RfD when it was deleted), but I don't see anything useful in the
    Trencher (bread) history that isn't in the Trencher (tableware) history. They both document the pagemove as well as the latter having all the history before that, which the Trencher (bread) history does not. Why do we need to keep one line of redundant history? BigNate37_(T) 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]