< February 4
February 6 >

February 5

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 5, 2012

Wide left

[edit]
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. JohnCD (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD clearly had consensus to delete the entire history and not leave a redirect, as this play has never been called "Wide left" in the media. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, these articles are using the way the ball went as creative titles, they are not outright saying "the play shall be called 'Wide left.'" There are many, many other missed kicks that went wide left, and this one is not particularly notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article title describing something (or a redirect for that matter, which is not held to the same standards as an article) does not necessarily identify something in the same way as its official name. WP:TITLE goes into that. It is quite complex. But in this case, it is not the title of something; it is a targeted redirect. It is a name that, though it may not be the official name, has been shown in numerous sources to be associated with the event, which is a valid reason for a redirect. This redirect has not been shown to meet any of the criteria for deleting. Hellno2 (talk) 05:40, 6 February 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.

Natty J

[edit]
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 18:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the article, no google hits and very few pageviews to suggest this is an actual abbreviation, let alone a commonly-used one. – hysteria18 (talk) 22:53, 5 February 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.

Wall Street Putsch

[edit]
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 posible search term. The question of whether the name should appear in the linked article's lede is a question for that talk page, not here.--Salix (talk): 13:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion - the term was never in any common usage, and the redirect is being used as a reason for adding this implausible name to the article lede. One newspaper article in 1934 used it, other than that it is only used by a single author (Sally Denton) with a book just issued in 2012 and an article promoting her book. Redirects used for book promotion are non-good Collect (talk) 20:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. Article mentions several times various putsches, by Teddy Roosevelt and so on. Does not mention specifically Wall Street. But I think a likely search term for now. I will try to find better for Wall Street Putsch in particular. Si Trew (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indented as second !vote Collect (talk) 13:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This honor's thesis seems very well documented and the term "Wall Street Putsch" is used 5 times. http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=etd_hon_theses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.217.238 (talk) 05:34, 10 February 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.

UKCOUNTRYREFS

[edit]
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--Salix (talk): 13:24, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was originally created as WP:UKCOUNTRYREFS. It was then moved to the main space. It's purpose is to emulate a Wikipedia project namespace short link (for use in talk page discussions etc. as [[UKCOUNTRYREFS]]) but it appears in the main space. Consequently it is an impossibly implausible search term that should not be in the encyclopedia. RA (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume it's trivial tho. The redirect relates to a heated subject for UK-based editors. I am involved in the matter (which is how I came across the redirect). I agree it is a simple housekeeping tasks, and was created innocently, however, it could blow up. I suggest the closing admin does so with consensus. --RA (talk) 12:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, hope this would pass quietly though.--Lenticel (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice - yes I do have something to say. You are more than involved RA - so why do it? The designed-to-be-quick 'UKCOUNTRYREFS' has been useful on many occasions in the past - despite your occasional attempts to physically hide from view the information it links to (and all the work done to prove to a painfully small group of committed people that Wales, Northern Ireland etc are indeed called "countries" as a matter of daily fact - whether you personally like the non-sovereign usage or not). It's helped save hours of endlessly repeating the same debate to the various types of trolls that pop up every now and again (you know, in your 'middle' period when you were just an IP of ambiguous interest - so I guess you may not remember it, despite it being well in your singular topic area until you became an admin). And the same goes for British Isles - keep out the politics. Wikipedia has NO PLACE in controlling the use of such common-use terminology. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:32, 10 February 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.

Hindu temples in Cuddalore district

[edit]
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 cross namespace redirect. There may be a case for creating a List of article.--Salix (talk): 13:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary page. the page redirects to Category:Hindu temples in Cuddalore district RaviMy Tea Kadai 05:10, 5 February 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.
More