Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 June 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 13, 2012

Shannon Ward[edit]

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, as no reliable sources confirm the subject of the target is or was ever known by this name have been provided. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect goes to a page that has absolutely no mention of the name Shannon Ward within the article. There is only mention of the name Shannon. This is causing the name Shannon Ward to redirect to a page about someone who is not surnamed Ward. The biography links do not specify a real name or previous name using Ward. The redirect should be deleted, and the Shannon Ward page should be deleted. Sirrussellott (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, [1] said her real name was Shannon Ward, so the article probably should mention that as a previous name. TimBentley (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reliable source which can confirm her surname is Ward. You posted a link from SLAM! but here is another link suggesting her real name is Shannon Claire Spruill [2]. Her IMDB profile gives the same birth name of Shannon Claire Spruill [3].Sirrussellott (talk) 21:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: if no reliable sources can be found stating that her real name is 'Shannon Ward', otherwise is too confusing/useless when a search for 'Shannon Ward' redirects to this page with no mention of such.--Michaela den (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2012 (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.

Im bored[edit]

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 GB fan 18:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This speedy deletion was declined, but it is an implausable redirect. It can be protected from page creation to prevent vandalism. –sumone10154(talk • contribs) 04:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • What makes you say this is implausible? It seems quite logical to me that someone who is bored would seach for this. Also, what benefit does a salted redlink bring? By taking someone to the article about boredom it's possible that they might learn something or be inspired to do or find out about something to alleviate their condition. It's far from guaranteed of course, but redirects are so cheap that even a slight benefit is better than nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it has been successfully preempting the vandalism that recurred with distressing frequency at this title until the redirect was created. The target is reasonable plausible and not obviously harmful. Yes, we could SALT the page but that policy also tells us to limit protection to the minimum extent necessary to protect the project. Salting is overkill where a non-harmful redirect will do. Rossami (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any thoughts on re-anchoring to Category:Wikipedia backlog? Dru of Id (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that's a good idea. Firstly we shouldn't redirect artile-space titles to maintenance categories when there are plausible encyclopaedia articles that we can target (see WP:CNR). Secondly, that category is not a helpful place to dump inexperienced users wanting something to do (it's not unlikely to result in more work due to errors by well meaning users who don't understand what they're doing) - and in any case much there is an admin backlog not a general user backlog. If you want to recruit help from bored people, and I think it's an idea worth exploring, then much better would be a {{selfref}} hatnote to a Wikipedia space page that gives an introduction to what people can do. Thryduulf (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2012 (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.

Sales Actor MSK (disambiguation)[edit]

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. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — this is an extraordinarily implausible redirect. In the last twelve months, it's never been viewed more than seven times per month, and only once has it been viewed even three times in one day. I can't imagine why anyone would ever search for this target. Nyttend (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, speedy if you find a criterion, see User:Sales Actor MSK. TimBentley (talk) 17:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the user's contribution history, I'm not sure if it was a new-user test, a vanity page or just vandalism. Regardless, I can find no justification to keep this redirect. Rossami (talk) 03:55, 14 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_13&oldid=1146309840"