< July 13
July 15 >

July 14

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 14, 2011

Wikipedia:10CR

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 as there is no consensus to delete. Not all shortcuts/pages that exist in the projectspace are official guidelines and policies, and as pointed out by users below there are many shortcuts. I don't believe it matters whether it points to userspace essays or projectspace essays. Other arguments here about the content of the target itself should be discussed at the user talk page, as they are outside the scope of Redirects for Discussion. The target also contains the usual disclaimer of 'this is an essay, not policy', thus the argument it decieves people into thinking it is official policy is weak. --Taelus (talk) 08:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP namespace redirect. A long and contentious user essay is using a WP namespace redirect to masquerade as a consensus-supported, Wikipedia-sanctioned guideline in the author's edit summaries. The author uses the redirect to help explain his deletions of images from articles which he believes are in violation of fair use policy. The author argues, in support of the use of the redirect, that cross-namespace redirects are commonplace and useful in edit summaries. True though that may be, the "WP" namespace carries the special cachet of community-vetted policy and should not be used inappropriately to redirect to one user's own rationale for a particular editing campaign he has chosen to carry out, particularly when such a campaign is controversial. As presently used in his edit summaries, the author makes it appear as if he is only following agreed-upon guidelines, when, upon further investigation, such is not actually the case. The author further provides a list of cross-namespace redirects which have been permitted to exist. The present redirect is distinguishable from all the provided examples in that none of the provided examples are in usage to justify, in edit summaries, individual (potentially controversial) edits. No editor makes a substantive edit to an article and then uses WP:HOLES as a shorthand explanation of the edit in an edit summary, as one might use WP:V or WP:NPOV. Furthermore, the name of this redirect, "10CR", gives it the appearance of an official rule number or guideline, increasing the chances of confusion for a consensus-supported guideline. Robert K S (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Foxy Brown (2006 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 Delete. Ruslik_Zero 17:41, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useless redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Guffin bean

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. Although not the strongest consensus RfD will ever produce, it's clear that deletion isn't supported at this time. Thryduulf (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This name for lima bean is completely unattested. The creator appears to have invented a number of "common names" for lima beans. I can think of no explanation short of vandalism. I urge that all of this user's contributions be investigated. Speciate (talk) 18:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the user seems to make a lot of good redirects too, from individual songs on an album to the album (, from plausable search terms to the list they're found in and from common mispellings to the proper article (antepasto to antipasto for instance). Given the fact a lot of these seem to be good redirects I'm not sure what's going on here. Maybe we should ask? HominidMachinae (talk) 09:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I informed the creator of this discussion. Upon consideration, he may not be a native speaker of English. He somehow mistakes names of authors of scientific papers for proper names of things, such as this invention that I removed here. Speciate (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those webpages relied on the erroneous Wikipedia page! Speciate (talk) 18:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 12:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mahim Fishermen Colony

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 page restored to article version and deleted as CSD A7. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the word anything about a fishermen oclony anywhere in the article for Mahim, so I'm not sure why this redirect was created. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Mahim Koliwada

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 redirect deleted (see above). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the word "Koliwada" anywhere in the article for Mahim, so I'm not sure why this redirect was created. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 12:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.

Datang town (Chengdu Datang)

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 no consensus to delete Datang town (Chengdu Datang). Datang town ( Chengdu Datang) as a highly improbable typo. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the following reasons:

  1. Confusing and misleading: Implies that Datang is part of the Chengdu Metropolitan Area when in fact it is rural. A typical Chinese would only use "X, Prefecture-level city" if X were part of Prefecture's (i.e. Chengdu) metro area, otherwise the county-level division (in this case Pujiang County) is used to disambiguate.
  2. What is in the parentheses is a romanisation of an East Asian practise, namely listing the political divisions in decreasing scope. It is simply inappropriate for anything on EN-Wiki written in English to be like this.
  3. Does not disambiguate anything, as the name of the town is in the parentheses, which serve as a means of disambiguating.
  4. Nothing links to either redirect, and since the page move from the last redirect occurred nearly 20 months ago, websites should have had ample time to have updated their links, so licensing (GFDL, I believe) is not an issue. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That even you admit that it is technically inaccurate means that the re-direct is misleading, which is a reason for deleting. Clearly you make a point to not bother reading my first point, to not at all consider the facts I presented (no, mentioning style alone is insufficient) and to cite the common excuse "re-directs are cheap". If it were not for those who stall these discussions, this would have been deleted tomorrow. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 17:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've had a long discussion in Las Vegas as to whether the article about the city should mention the Las Vegas strip. The strip is "technically" not part of Las Vegas, but no one agreed that the article should exclude it. Technicalities don't matter. If it's confusing, meaning it could refer to something else, then make it a disambig page. If it's merely inaccurate, the redirect people to a page that IS accurate and corrects the confusion. When if comes to deleting redirects, the burden of proof is on the deleter, not the one attempting to save it. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 01:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one in their right mind would consider a rural town 60 km from a city's outlying airport part of that city's metro area. Why don't you check the map of this town's surroundings yourself? Misleading is misleading, and as stated above, "merely" inaccurate is a reason for deletion. Also, consider your response to be an applicable case of WP:OTHERSTUFF, because the point about Las Vegas is irrelevant, the strip is very near to the city limits. And I have already provided enough reason to delete this re-direct, and you have responded with nothing but WikiPolitics to my points. This is not a mere technicality. Technicalities involve administration, which you have alluded to above. Metropolitan areas are usually vaguely defined and certainly not defined on administrative terms. You have little, if no, case here and so are resorting to 'other stuff' and cannot come up with as much evidence as I provided above. Sigh. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Taelus (talk) 12:06, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
More