This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 2, 2011
Sofia Wilėn
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.
Unnecesaary redirect, contravenes
WP:BLP on several grounds. Redirect without the acute accent and the other woman in this case have been removed previously.
Could you specify how this contravenes BLP? Your statement is vague to say the least. Is this not the name of one of the women making accusations at Mr. Assange? Is that not already a matter of very public record? They even know her name in India:
[1] so I think the cat is well and truly out of the bag regardless of what we do with this redirect. I would argue that the deleted redirects should be re-instated as it is likely readers (the persons we are trying to help by creating redirects) will come here looking for more information and will search these names.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
00:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep-BLP1E would argue against an article on Willen herself, sure. However, a redirect to a section of another article covering the event for which she is notable is perfectly reasonable.--
Fyre2387(
talk •
contribs)20:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete; consensus is currently to keep these names out of the article because they are of no particular interest or notability at this stage and BLP cautions us to exercise caution and restraint in naming people in these contexts. Nothing much is served by this redirect except to prove the point and subvert the consensus of not using the names at this stage. Can be easily recreated in the future if this individual becomes relevant (i.e. if it goes to trial) --Errant(
chat!)14:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. If a person isn't notable enough for either an article of their own or more than a passing mention in another article then it's unlikely that the redirect will be be useful. Where the target is something like this then BLP issues definately come into play and it should be deleted. I don't think CSD#R3 applies here, but
WP:CSD#G10 might.
Thryduulf (
talk)
19:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Template:Catupmerge
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.
Bypass redirect for transcluding pages and delete - In January 2009,
Pegship created a tag for stub categories with only upmerged stub tags. While the tag itself was a good idea, I think that the name the user gave it wasn't; I have moved the tag to a better name.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu20:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)reply
As long as the target template is kept, the redirect to it should be kept as well. The redirects created by the pagemove process are helpful to editors who are familiar with the old name. The new name may be better but the redirect does no observable harm.
Rossami(talk)22:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Stainton, Cumbria (near Penrith)
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 above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
Clatterford End
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.
These are near useless disambiguated forms, similar to the deleted Round Maple redirects from the RfD 21 December, created by that same user.
65.94.45.209 (
talk)
00:26, 2 January 2011 (UTC)reply