Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 27
January 27
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 27, 2010
Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Template examples
The result of the discussion was Histmerge and Delete, with thanks to PeterSymonds. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California/Template examples → Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Templates (links to redirect • history • stats)
Redirect created from a project to task force merge/conversion. There is some history on the page itself, but it is fairly trivial and not likely to be needed, and if so is out of date. Page is an unlikely target, and Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Templates already covers the bulk of any material. Optigan13 (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Unfortunately per Wikipedia:Merging, we should always keep a redirect in place if a merge occured for licensing reasons, thus I don't think we can delete this as it states it doesn't matter how much information was merged. I won't close this RfD though as I am not a licensing expert, hopefully someone else does know so I can learn the procedure too. --Taelus (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, though noting Taelus's point maybe it can't. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Histmerge into target, then delete redirect - the overlap of histories is minimal, with the target's history beginning September 2008, while the redirect had only a few (mostly trivial) edits since then (the GDFL wouldn't require us to maintain the history of the tagging for RfD should this redirect be deleted, for example). B.Wind (talk) 03:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Larry W. Smith
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
delete redirects to dab, no obvious reason, could cause confusion Boleyn (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- delete. A google search reveals that there are several people called "Larry W. Smith" but none of them appear immediately notable enough for a Wikipedia article. No history to the redirect or the title. Gets on average 6 hits a month (40 total in July-December), never more than 2 in a single day. Doesn't appear to be a point to it's existence. Thryduulf (talk) 23:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete, an unhelpful redirect with no incoming links. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Barack Obama Presidential Library
The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 20:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
No such library exists yet. As soon as there is one, this can be an article, but before that there is no point in it. The target article does not discuss Obama's possible future presidential library. Ucucha 15:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- I don't see the point. This was just a redirect in case someone says "well is there an article in wikipedia about the future Barack Obama Presidential Library ?" and the redirect points to Barack Obama so the guy says "probably not". If you don't like it delete. No harm done. Hektor (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete as the redirect implies the existence or inevitability of the library's existence. Since there have been no official announcements of plans for its creation, the redirect is an example of crystal balling.147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete - No mention in target article. Redirecting implies the thing exists and is mentioned in tha article when, in fact, it doesn't and isn't, Spizzilizounge, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 13:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
- Delete. The redirect is somewhat of a placeholder, and isn't something that a user would likely search for, so per WP:REDIRECT, delete. JulieSpaulding 12:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)