Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 March 4

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 speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G8 by User:MrKIA11. Non-admin closure. –Grondemar 05:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Add 'em Up (The Price is Right pricing game) → Add 'em Up (links to redirect • history • stats) 

• Add 'em Up (game show) → Add 'em Up (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Orphan redirects with no incoming links that target to a recently-deleted article. Sottolacqua (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagged for speedy deletion - target is deleted. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 to encourage page creation from red link. Disambiguation not the best solution as the term may have a primary topic, but no prejudice against page creation as a disambiguation if no article can be built. --Taelus (talk) 12:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• LiveDrive → Windows Live SkyDrive (links to redirect • history • stats) 

I was trying to find an article on Livedrive, the online storage service by livedrive.com. This redirected me to Windows Live SkyDrive which was rather confusing since they are similar services, but certainly not the same. Fsmmu (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If the livedrive service is notbale enough for its own article (I have no idea) then I suggested creating that article and linking to the Windows Live SkyDrive via a hatnote. If the livedrive service is covered elsewhere on Wikipedia (e.g. an article about Livedrive) then I'd say replace the redirect with a dab page. If it isn't notable enough covered anywhere, I'd just add a sentence at the Windows Live SkyDrive article. Thryduulf (talk) 22:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if there are other articles, I suggest just dabify the redirect. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 04:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; add to WP:Requested articles. The word "LiveDrive" appears in articlespace exactly four times: this redirect, a reference link in Microsoft Max, a mention of "LiveDrive Traffic" in WKYT-TV, and a link to a reference in Slip lane. A Google search of LiveDrive[1] turns up infomation that LiveDrive and SkyDrive are two completely different entities and concepts. It appears that LiveDrive is sufficiently notable on its own; a redlink (and a listing in WP:RA) would encourage creation of an article; maintaining a misleading redirect would discourage it. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• List of people from Google, Kansas → List of people from Topeka, Kansas (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Created as a result of someone pagemoving List of people from Topeka, Kansas. I wouldn't hesitate and mark this as implausible except for the circumstances discussed at Talk:Topeka, Kansas#Google, Kansas. I can see how the redirect Google, Kansas pointing to Topeka would be a good idea, but this one I'm not so sure is as plausible. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 21:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - think about it: is an article listing the names of thousands of Kansans plausible (furthermore, this is an unofficial name change - purportedly for only one month)? There is no reason at all for this redirect to imply that even a significant part of the list would exist. Side issue: per WP:NAME, the target article has some serious problems, too. Perhaps this should be discussed in an appropriate forum, too - WP:AfD, anyone? 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 19:39, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oliver Cromwell Song → Oliver Cromwell (song) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Seems redundant. If you type "Oliver Cromwell Song" verbatim into the search box, the top hit is "Oliver Cromwell (song)." 2 says you, says two 17:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redundancy is not a proper grounds for deleting a redirect. In this case, someone could have heard it from a Monty Python album and thought of it being the "song about Oliver Cromwell" or "Oliver Cromwell Song" (with either caps or lower case "s"). So it's a very plausible search term and qualifies as a "keep" per WP:RFD#KEEP. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 18:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Very plausible and redirects are WP:CHEAP, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 19:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. The material restored to 69 sex position was removed from the article 12 days ago, and the talk page consensus seems to be that it should stay out. This redirect therefore serves no purpose: there is no requirement to preserve the attribution history of deleted material. The only route by which the material is likely to return is either by consensus at 69 sex position to restore it there, when this could be undeleted as a redirect with the relevant history, or via DRV and an undeletion of this at the point before it was redirected. JohnCD (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: for attribution purposes, the page has been moved to a sub-page at Talk:69 (sex position)/List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position so that, in the event of the material which is still in the history of 69 (sex position), being reinstated, the contribution history is preserved. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position → 69 (sex position) (links to redirect • history • stats) 

Delete. This is an invalid redirect; there is no such list of pop culture references within the article, and it appears that any such section was vacated eons ago. JBsupreme (talk) 07:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, misleading redirect as there is no such list present in target article. --Taelus (talk) 09:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But keep is the material is kept (it has been restored now.) RfD is not the best avenue for this, so keep for now, and make deletion of the redirect dependant on consensus on whether to include or exclude the material? (If there are attribution issues we can just move the page to subspace somewhere, I never understood what is so taboo about using subspace compared to keeping redirects with consensus that they aren't helpful simply due to attribution issues.) --Taelus (talk) 08:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Misleading. Not partiucularly plausible a search term, either, though that kind of thing doesn't bother me too much, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 15:29, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The AfD close was not redirect, but merge and redirect; the material was merged., but then removed back on October 13, 2006 [2] --primarily at the urging of one editor. I do not think that was sufficient to upset the closing at the AfD and I have restored it--I see this as a typical example, of first merge, then cut, then leave just the redirect, then remove the redirect, a way to delete an article for which there is not consensus to delete. I have now restored it, so the redirect is necessary in order to preserve the edit history pending further discussion there. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content was merged April 2006 as the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position. Even while the content was removed, the attribution dependency remained, as any editor can easily restore it. If the redirect is unsuitable for article space, there are a few methods described in WP:Merge and delete. Flatscan (talk) 05:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]