This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 3, 2010
- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasarticle created with hatnote as suggested. Nothing more for RfD to do here.Thryduulf (talk)20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion. This links to an existing page. I wish to add a new page with the same name as the redirect.— Precedingunsigned comment added bySerenditious (talk •contribs)
- I'm not sure what you are wanting to do here -
- If you are wanting to create an article with the titleGMFA, then just overwrite the redirect with your article but add {{for|the Indian Christian music label and distribution company|Good Music For All}} to the top line.
- If you want to create an article with the titleGood Music For All then you'll need to add a parenthetical disambiguation to the title. Without knowing the subject of the article though I cannot suggest anything.
- If you want to create an article with a different title with the initials GMFA then go ahead and create it and change theGMFA article to a disambiguation page between the two articles; or add {{redirect|GMFA|<subject of your article>|<title of your article>}} to the top of theGood Music For All page.Thryduulf (talk)12:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much. The desire is to write an article entitled GMFA so I will add the{{for}} label.Serenditious
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasno consensus to delete. The last pre-dab version has been restored as the proposed "disambiguation page" violatesMOS:DAB andWP:DISAMBIGUATION. Non admin close.B.Wind (talk)20:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pointless redirect.mono05:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, it actuallyused to be a dab page, until it was changed. I personally don't see much wrong with the dab page, it seems useful, and redirecting to Google is just irrelevant.
- But what doyou think?Lord Spongefrog,(I am Czar of all Russias!)10:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore dab page. While it technically does not disambiguate articles that would otherwise share the same title, it does perform a useful function equivalent to a dab page and, as Lord Spongefrog says, redirecting toGoogle doesn't really help anyone find the biography they were most likely looking for.Thryduulf (talk)12:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Restore dab per above.–Grondemar19:36, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is mentioned in the lede of the target article. The proposed dab page runs afoul ofMOS:DAB as there is simply no disambiguation. The links to the articles of the two individuals are actually in the same sentence as the one mentioning the phrase "Google Guys".147.70.242.54 (talk)17:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - IMHO, this is one of those rare occasions when we shouldWP:Ignore all rules. The current target mentions them, but isn't actually about them — it isn't immediately obvious. It's a relatively widely used term, and has hundreds of page views; I think it deserves its own page. MOSDAB itself says "ignore these guidelines if doing so will be more helpful to readers than following them",Lord Spongefrog,(I am Czar of all Russias!)18:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.- 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 adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasRetarget toHair removal#Hair removal methods.Ruslik_Zero19:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Photoepilation is not equal to laser epilation. It is more general term. There are enough methods and devices for photoepilation without lasers - for example with high-energy lamps or diods.Alex Spade (talk)16:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
