Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 14

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) 07:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Kala Juma 2004 film) → Black Friday (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This redirects to Black Friday (film) which is in turn a redirect to Black Friday (disambiguation). I checked all of the Black Friday film articles (1940, 2004, and 2009) and none of them mention Kala Juma anywhere. Beerest355 Talk 21:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This might be an instance where they think there is a film for it, so I'm wondering if there is a corresponding film for this in another language that we don't yet have. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• According to this article, it's a Bollywood film. Google finds nothing on that movie title, however, and I also am unable to make a clear connection between that title and any of the "Black Friday" topics. On the assumption that the rest of that actor's resume appears notable enough for articles, delete to encourage the creation of actual content at that title. Rossami (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete typo to what should be a redlink -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:13, 17 July 2013 (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.

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. The redirect can be overwritten with an article about the virus or retargeted to one if created elsewhere without need for a further discussion here. Thryduulf (talk) 07:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hantaan virus → Hantavirus (links to redirect • history • stats)     [ Closure: keep/delete ] 

This needs to be deleted because it causes confusion. Hantaan virus is sometimes mistaken for Hantavirus. Hantaan is the species. Hantavirus is the genus. They are not the same thing. It should go back to being a red link so editors will see it in the taxobox and know it needs an article written. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, only because the article Hantavirus provides information about the Hantaan virus species. The best scenario would be the creation of the article Hantaan—which remains a redlink. And although the information provided about the species is little, it is more than any other article will supply. It is the most likely target for a person searching about the species. Instead of requesting deletion of the redirect, you should request the creation of Hantaan. — |J~Pæst|  17:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the average reader will assume Hantaan virus is the same as Hantavirus because it directs there on a search whereas the other species do not. Also, the article does not mention, and should not mention, the particulars of the virus which it's own article would provide. Species should never be redirected to genus. Btw, on the suggestion of Hantaan, the redlink would need to say "Hantaan virus." Malke 2010 (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2013 (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.