Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 11

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 Speedily deleted. Author blanked  7  03:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Nitta Yuma, Mass. → Nitta Yuma, Mississippi (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Massachusetts name linking to Mississippi page. StudiesWorld (talk) 21:54, 11 January 2014 (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. --BDD (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Template:Portugal-noble-stub → Template:Portugal-royal-stub (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

Seems the result of an old page move: pointless redirect, as not all nobles are of royal family. PamD 14:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment but is the stub type used for all aristos, or is there a separate stub type? It seems to me that a royalty-only stub-type is too specific, with too few members to tag, and it should be broader based. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IMO, the stub sorting project doesnt like redirect to stub templates. I have notified the stub sorting WikiProject. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:12, 13 January 2014 (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. WJBscribe (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Funkadactyls →
  Brodus Clay (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete
   ] 

The Funkadactyls have nothing to do with

Brodus Clay

any more and shouldn't be Redirected to him Pidzz (talk) 06:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

—rybec 07:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is a strange outcome from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Funkadactyls. Maybe User:STATicVapor might be able to explain why the redirect could be justified. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to either team member
  Talk:The Funkadactyls thought this was a lupole to get the protection taken off and an article created for them, but after all the disruption with recreating it after the deletion discussion, I do not see that happening. STATic message me! 15:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Now that The Funkadactyls no longer manage Brodus Clay, shouldn't they get their own page? The announcers reference them as "The Funkadactyls", Total Divas gave them a lot more notability and they're competing in a lot of matches these last couple months. Honestly, I can gather up enough sources to prove that they pass the WP:GNG. Delete and restart with an article -- Miss X-Factor (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss X-Factor should easily be able to get enough to prove notability. A lot has changed in the (almost) year since the AfD... they've broken from Brodus, done plenty of tag matches without him, and most notability have been prominently featured on Total Divas, where their "Funkadactyl" gimmick is always front and center.LM2000 (talk) 01:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick scan of google news show she might be notable. If that is the case, someone should write an stub, because we cant keep the redirect pointing at the wrong location, and we cant arbitrarily pick one of

Talk:Brodus Clay John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Replace redirect with article They're notable on their own now.
  Head90 | ^#OneMoreGame 03:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete given the lack of one good target.
  CR90 or others should feel free to replace it with an article, however; it's been long enough since the AfD that it's worth a shot again, and even if it's still judged to be non-notable, we may get a cleaner outcome from AfD. --BDD (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per BDD. Best to delete the redirect and start again with an article. Notability problems should be resolved but if they're called into question again another AfD would resolve that issue once and for all.LM2000 (talk) 00:42, 30 January 2014 (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. WJBscribe (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mills Act → Mill conversion (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

"Mills Act" is a piece of California legislation which has vanishing little to do with mills, of which CA has very few indeed. Fatidiot1234 (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Create the article on the California law, with a hatnote to
  p 01:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• "Mills Act" isn't mentioned in the mill conversion article. —rybec 10:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as it is misleading the reader. Mills Act has never been mentioned in that article. A new article about the California legislation or any other topic may be written in the future, but right now this redirect is incorrect. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:57, 13 January 2014 (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.