Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 August 30

The result of the discussion was retarget to Fanqie, it can be targeted back to Sun Yan if said article ever actually materialises. ~ mazca ^talk 21:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yan Sun → Sun Yan (links to redirect) (stats)

Double redirect excluded from bot maintenance with dubious reason provided. uKER (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There's no need to have a "pre-emptive" redirect. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The implication from the history seems to be that Sun Yan will eventually become an article, hence it is better to preserve Yan Sun as a redirect to that page, which will correctly redirect once Sun Yan is created. SebastianHelm seems to be the main force in that page, so I notified him. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 02:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• When Sun Yan becomes an article, the redirect can be recreated. That way, the viability of the redirect can be determined. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: "Yan Sun" is an alternative way to render the name "Sun Yan" in English (see Chinese name), and exclusion from bots is not a reason to delete a redirect. — Sebastian 05:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is, however, a double redirect. Come to think of it, why can't it just be retargeted?--UsaSatsui (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See Wikipedia talk:Double redirects#Many double redirects are good. — Sebastian 22:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete -- I tend to agree that it is plausible enough so having it around seems valid.. That said, UsaSatsui seems to be right here. It can (and probably) should be created when it is useful. —mako๛
  • The more I try to understand this issue, the more I am confused as exactly what the important issues in deciding this case should be. I don't think I understand the issues at play here well enough to offer an opinion one way or another and will defer to more knowledgeable editors opinions. —mako๛ 20:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  UsaSatsui's "delete" vote was from before my explanation why this is a plausible and valid redirect. But that has been explained now, and seems undisputed. Why do you want to delete a plausible and valid redirect? — Sebastian 22:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • You misunderstood me. I can't dispute whether or not it's plausible because whether it's a plausible redirect can't be determined...there's no article under Sun Yan. Without knowing just what's going to be there, it's impossible to determine it's plausibility. The correct target for this redirect should be the same as for Sun Yan until the article is created. And as for your link, that's a week-long discussion initiated by you about why you think some double redirects are acceptable that doesn't seem to have full consensus at all. Please explain why you think this double redirect should be an exception to the general policy of "double redirects should not exist. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and retarget to Fanqie, per UsaSatsui. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 11:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was Not enough consensus to delete either redirect. Killiondude (talk) 02:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Right breast → Breast (links to redirect)

Should be deleted. This is an implausible redirect with no links to it, and Wikipedia is never going to have separate "right breast" and "left breast" articles. The redirect at Left breast, also with no links, should also be deleted. (now let the boob jokes begin...) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it is not an implausible search term. Rich Farmbrough, 13:07, 30 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete. Just dropped by on coincidence, but is now Wikipedia encouraging users to expect "left breast" and "right breast" should have separate articles? Now this is new. --uKER (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, no. It is a redirect. Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep. Not implausible. Also lack of incoming links should not be used as a deletion reason. meshach (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Common sense, really. Expecting a search for "left body part" and "right body part" is implausible, and no other parts of the body have similar redirects. There's no need for these. --UsaSatsui (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unlike handedness, there's nothing particularly different about either breast, excluding what side the significant other of the person attached to the breast sleeps on. A search for either left or right breast will give breast as the first return. Also, there is perhaps a better target for left breast at My Left Breast. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Not implausible at all and very little convincing description of any harm. —mako๛ 19:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Plausible search term. As for the argument that the left and right breast are the same, please explain that to some Amazons engaged in archery practice. --Allen3 ^talk 00:15, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever you are, left- or right-handed, hands are also different, but nobody would expect separate articles for "left hand" and "right hand". --uKER (talk) 00:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep right breast, as it's a plausible and occasionally used search term. Retarget left breast to Breast (disambiguation), which now includes My Left Breast. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 11:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- plausible term that could be used in articles about clothing, body armor, or heraldry. Geo Swan (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, the term is inplausible, breasts is already a large article, i don't see the need to seperate the 2.--Tlk041394 (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not seperated! It's a redirect already! Rich Farmbrough, 11:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Nobody is suggesting having an article on left breasts, and one on right breasts. You are at redirects for discussion after all. —mako๛ 20:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep possible, though unlikely, search term. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of this discussion was redirect turned into an article. This outcome seems to address all the issues raised by people arguing for the deletion of the redirect. In any case, since the redirect is now gone, we can probably stop talking about it here. Non-admin closure. —mako๛ 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Kathryn Reynolds → Soap (TV series) (links to redirect)

I've just finished putting up a list of episodes of the TV series Soap, and I've included the names of numerous people who were featured players in specific episodes. Some of the names I've posted don't yet have links to pages...I'm hoping anyone that knows something about these actors will make pages for them. Anyway, for the actress Kathryn Reynolds, the link redirects to the page for Soap, rather than to an open link encouraging people to create a page on Kathryn Reynolds, which is what I'd like to see. Could I suggest this redirect for speedy deletion? Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Killiondude (talk) 21:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- as per the nomination. It sounds like this might speed up the time to which a legitimate article on a notable subject is recreated. —mako๛ 19:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and since links to Kathryn Reynolds appear in an unrelated article. --Zach425 ^talk/contribs 10:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if she is at all notable create a stub, will take you two minutes. In fact I'll go and do it. Rich Farmbrough, 11:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Looks good. Although now that it is an article, there is no real point in debating the redirect. —mako๛ 20:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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