November 9
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 9, 2012
Wikipedia:IAR.?
- 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 by RHaworth under criterion G7. Thryduulf (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per precedent of WP:IAR. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 23:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete it. No discussion necessary. I'll tag it myself. Cheers, 76Strat String da Broke da (talk) 00:39, 10 November 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.
Player's Guide to the Dragonlance Campaign
- 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 and the retarget seems reasonable.Tikiwont (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A proposed deletion of this article was averted by redirecting to Dragonlance, but there is nothing called "Player's Guide to the Dragonlance Campaign" on the Dragonlance article, nor can I find any mention on other related Wikipedia articles. The title should not be added to Wikipedia at all unless there are reliable sources discussing it. I see no sources to justify the existence of this title, neither as an article nor as a redirect. Neelix (talk) 21:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of Dragonlance modules and sourcebooks. There is a review in White Wolf magazine, an independent reliable source, but I do not yet have access to this magazine. The review can be added at a future point, but there is no reason not to have a redirect in the meantime. BOZ (talk) 21:25, 9 November 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.
Till the World Ends World Tour
- 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 Whilst nonofficial it is deemed to have been picked up sufficiently to count as reasonable alternate name. Tikiwont (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prod removed from this redirect so listing here with the reason given on the prod
"Redirect is a name that was made up by fans, has no need for this website." Rotten regard Softnow 20:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep, given it's likely use as a search term. --Izno (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Page-view statistics show this is a well-used redirect, and it seems a valid ((R from other name)). No reason to delete. Thryduulf (talk) 16:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Till the World Ends Tour should go to the same place (or also be deleted) . Siuenti (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - terms made up by fans are plausible (indeed, likely) search terms. WilyD 08:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Sorry, did not know this was moved here. Again, I support deletion. Even if it is a fan name, it was a name that way made by a selct few even when the tour had an official name. As seen on the history , no one but the creator (and the person who made it a redirect) has even edited it. If you look at the page history it started off as a completely bogus page to begin with. Official sources never referred to it by this either. --Shadow (talk) 06:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirects usually have very few edits, since there's nothing to edit. And being unofficial is irrelevant. Ego White Tray (talk) 13:31, 21 November 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.
Beatrice Bruteau
- 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. Tikiwont (talk) 14:54, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another redirect, same situation, same promotional editor. The proper way of handling articles on less than notable authors is not by linking to the subject--this just perpetuates and even enhances the promotionalism. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 9 November 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.
Diane G. Wilson
- 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. Tikiwont (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The hopelessly promotional article about a non-notable author was redirected to the subject she writes about. I don't think it's even worth that--she is not one of the major figures on the subject, just an ordinary therapist. With respect to the background, see User talk:Connieshaw DGG ( talk ) 04:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 04:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - if she's non-notable, there's no reason to encourage article creation. WilyD 08:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete pretty much per Qworty; she's completely non-notable and the target page doesn't mention her name or have any information remotely relevant. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, not mentioned at target, so redirection would mean a wild goose chase. Siuenti (talk) 23:34, 14 November 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.