October 28
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 28, 2012
Show white and the seven dwarves
- 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. Tikiwont (talk) 17:39, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be an implausible type ("Show" instead of "Snow") with no incoming links, directed to a disambiguation page. bd2412 T 18:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Keep-Looking at the stats, it seems to be getting enough hits to dispute the implausible typo argument. "No incoming links" is, as has been discussed ad nauseam in countless RfDs, an utterly irrelevant point.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plausible typo. h and n are right next to each other on my keyboard. WilyD 10:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- And they look similar, so someone could make the typo and not notice. Ego White Tray (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It's also a very plausible OCR error. I had to read an OCRed text earlier today where nearly every "n" and about half the "a"s had been incorrectly rendered as "h" and "d" respectively. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 7 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.
Southpaw (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 No consensus to change the AfD outcome. Tikiwont (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL. Film doesn't exist, and it's redirecting to Eminem as a potential minor actor. MSJapan (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This exists per the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southpaw (film). The film is mentioned in the targeted section (the redirect points to Eminem#Acting career), and so it is not an inappropriate target. However, the film is mentioned in slightly more detail at Antoine Fuqua, which would also make a suitable target, although as readers following the link from Portal:Eminem would likely be more surprised to land at the likely director's page. So my recommendation is keep or retarget to Antoine Fuqua with a slight preference for the former. Thryduulf (talk) 18:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the latest news from May 2012 indicates it isn't happening anytime soon, and nothing really has happened since the AfD in 2010, I don't think there is an appropriate target. MSJapan (talk) 11:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that it is still being reported indicates continuing coverage, and likelihood that people will look for it. We have an appropriate amount of content about it, and we should enable people to find that. The redirect is also quietly discouraging the creation of an article we don't want (yet). Thryduulf (talk) 17:07, 29 October 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.
Howard Lindzon
- 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. (NAC) Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do we really need this redirect? It goes to an article that barely mentions the guy. Athene cunicularia (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say yes. Redirects are cheap, Lindzon doesn't merit an article but is mentioned in the target article as co-creator. There is no other person with this name with any significant google presence so it's not in the way of anything. Finally, it gets a significant number of hits (61 in September, 102 in August) so it is being used. All this adds up to a clear keep in my opinion. The redirect was created as an alternative to speedy deletion in 2009 by user:Nancy, whom I will invite to comment here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thryduulf has pretty much summed up the reasons I created the redirect instead of zapping when the original article was nommed for CSD way back when add that to the fact it does seem to be "used" with some frequency and it's a clear keep. nancy 18:25, 28 October 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.
Rosemary Agnew
- 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 per WP:CSD#G6. For future reference, redirects preventing page moves go to Wikipedia:Requested moves (WP:RM). Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This redirect should be deleted as there is an article for creation to be moved named 'Rosemary Agnew'. Thomas85753 08:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- 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.
Johnny Swanson
- 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 John Swanson and thus disambiguate. Tikiwont (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This also seems to be a name of some other people and things. It should be a search result and not a redirect. Kurepalaku (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Unless Johnny Swanson is an article for creation waiting to be moved, the redirect is probably saving time.Thomas85753 08:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per nominator, "this seems to be a name of some other people and things". Thryduulf (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Judging from Google results, it might be better to retarget to Eleanor Updale and add a hatnote there. It doesn't look like anybody on John Swanson could be known as Johnny, but it wouldn't be bad to have a disambiguation page with Eleanor Updale, United States Senate election in Alabama, 2008, and (see also) John Swanson (disambiguation). TimBentley (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to John Swanson (disambiguation) and add whatever lines are appropriate there. I disagree with TimBentley - anyone named "John" could be called "Johnny" colloquially. bd2412 T 18:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to John Swanson (disambiguation), as John and Johnny are essentially the same name - if there was a very long list of Johnny Swansons, then it could be a separate page, but with only about three, it makes more sense to lump it in with John. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:42, 29 October 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.
American organ
- 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 Melodeon (organ). (NAC) Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Overly broad. Per target Harmonium, it may be known as the American reed organ. Though the term 'American organ' can refer to a larger class of musical instruments (e.g., American pipe organ, American theater organ, American reed organ, etc.), no articles exist under those names, so disambiguation is not a viable option. Waldhorn (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to Melodeon (organ) ("A melodeon (also known as a cabinet organ or American organ)...") and add a hatnote to Harmonium. Thryduulf (talk) 10:09, 28 October 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.
Grace Barberry
- 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) 21:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the redirect as the current target for the redirect has no information on this article whatsoever, as the character was a one off character as is there for not notable to be on the target page. Pointless redirect, made by me, as I thought character was more notable. — M.Mario (T/C) 21:37, 28 October 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.