Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 3

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

December 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 3, 2012

Rocker (lifestyle)

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 keep
Non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Request deletion for remains of old move (3 May 2006‎) with no talk, no incoming links, no history, no relevance... Trofobi (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a plausible search term that gets hits. No benefit in deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, no rationale for deletion. WilyD 11:27, 4 December 2012 (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.

Rocker (Style)

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 keep
non-admin closure.] Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply
]

Request deletion for unuseful, unused, misspelled very old redirect without any incoming links and no relevant history or talk. Trofobi (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep this is a likely search term given that it is consistently getting 10-20 hits/month. No benefit in deleting. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - useful, probably used, not misspell. Being very old is also a plus. WilyD 11:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No misspell? Rocker (style) would be the correct capz. --Trofobi (talk) 01:51, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And nobody knows that except for us Wikipedians. If your concerned about the wrong caps, you can always add {{
        R from capitalization}} to the page. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2012 (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.

Rockers(film)

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 Keep. Ruslik_Zero 16:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion for unuseful, unused, misspelled very old redirect without any incoming links and no relevant history or talk. Trofobi (talk) 19:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Rockers (movie)... I didn't expect so many fans of misspellings, in other wikis they are deleted & replaced because it helps readers, contributors and searchengines to learn better orthography and to go faster to full articles instead of redirects. But feel free to keep them all :) this is not important for me at all, I just expected them to be cleanups beyond dispute. --Trofobi (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As something of an FYI, this is one of the key reasons that redirects are not subject to PROD deletion, IMHO. Accepted deletion criteria for redirects tend to differ from accepted deletion criteria for other things. I do not myself fully understand the ins and outs of why redirect do or do not qualify for deletion. But the folks who hang out here at RFD do understand them. So rather than allowing redirects to be quietly deleted under the radar by PROD, they are generally supposed to be put up for debate here so that there can be some scrutiny by eyes that understand the expected deletion criteria. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2012 (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.

Kangdong (village)

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 Gangdong. Regardless of what Gangdong means it is an incomplete disambiguation from the point of view of an English speaker. Ruslik_Zero 16:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This appeared while User:Anthony Appleyard was performing some editions. This is a garbage like Kangdong/version 2. Kangdong or Gangdong means five places. Which one is Kangdong (village)? I request that Kangdong (village) is deleted. Sawol (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2012 (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.

B.o.B/redirects

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. Ruslik_Zero 16:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really confused about the meaning of this redirect, the history is nothing but improper cut and past moves and redirects from, not to mention the bad title. I want to see consensus on these type of redirects here, delete until convinced otherwise on the importance of keeping its history. Secret account 05:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the history of a redirect, why would it be needed for licensing/copyright purposes? Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_3&oldid=1050185422"