September 2

Physics/Theories

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 wasMoved toTalk:Branches of physics/Theories with a note to explain history. --JLaTondre (talk)22:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Physics/Theories →Branches of physics(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Delete because it is a very unlikely search term due to unconventional name. No incoming links from articles. Thanks!David Hollman(Talk)18:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - absolutely no basis for deletion. Far from being "a very unlikely search term" it gets a good number of hits every month. We do not expect incoming links for redirects. Finally, this is a former article that was merged into the target so deletion would breach our GFDL obligations.Bridgeplayer (talk)00:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that the former article was subject of a PROD as well.TimothyRias (talk)09:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that it was a redirect and redirects cannot be Prodded.Bridgeplayer (talk)19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Before the article was redirected, it was the subject of a PROD.TimothyRias (talk)09:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There should be no redirects of subpages in article space in this way. I also doubt that the page actual got hits from actual potential readers. More, likely the hits were generated by editors try to figure out what to do with this particular article. Note, that the article was never intended as an independent page that people would search for. Rather it was transcluded onto its main page. (Something that should not happen in the first place.) Now that the content of the page has been moved to the only place where it was transcluded, there is no reason for this redirect to exist.TimothyRias (talk)09:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the original intention, and whether its creation was right or wrong, is irrelevant; it has been an article and uses a title that people are searching for. It is pointless guessing as to why there are hits because we shall never know. You say "There should be no redirects of subpages in article space in this way." - this is wrong; redirects of the title of merged pages is absolutely routine. No policy compliant reason for deletion has been adduced and you have not addressed either the GFDL issues that would arise from deletion nor the possibility of breaking links in external sites.Bridgeplayer (talk)19:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification This article was redirected only recently on september 1st. Before that the page was an orphan subpage in article space transcluded in exactly one place. What should have happened was that either the page was moved to the template name space. Or the content should be subst'ed to the only place where it was transcluded, and the edit history should be merged there. Note that the existence of the page in any form is a direct violation ofWP:SUB.TimothyRias (talk)10:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely useless and unlikely search term.Headbomb {talk /contribs /physics /books}06:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - 229 hits last month a one show that it is not a "completely useless and unlikely search term". Straight deletion would breach GFDL.Bridgeplayer (talk)14:30, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  How many of those hits were the result of a search?TimothyRias (talk)20:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst I have no comment on the redirects value, this must be histmerged if the result is delete for GFDL reasons, as content was merged toBranches of physics from here. ---Taelus (Talk)11:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. On 18:52, 1 September 2010User:Dhollm text-merged pagePhysics/Theories to pageBranches of physics (where it has been transcluded in before). Someone asked for histmerge, but seeWP:Parallel histories. PagePhysics/Theories's history is part of the history of pageBranches of physics.Anthony Appleyard (talk)10:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the page is to be kept, the redirect is to be removed because as it stands the current redirect breaks ALL historical use of the thePhysics/Theories by trying to transclude the current version of theBranches of physics page into the historical versions of that page.TimothyRias (talk)14:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If there is no other way to maintain the history, can we not move Physics/Theories to a new name with a valid "syntax", which will then inherit the original page's history? It could be in Template namespace to indicate its original usage. It can have zero content with a note to explain that it exists only for GFDL purposes. Then, delete Physics/Theories, which at least solves the naming issue. This would break old versions ofBranches of physics but surely that must happen anytime *any* once-used template is deleted? (which seems like a MediaWiki issue to me anyway)David Hollman(Talk)14:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This is what should have happend in the first place. So, lets just do that.TimothyRias (talk)12:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations against people of Jewish faith

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 wasdelete.Courcelles02:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Accusations against people of Jewish faith →Antisemitic canard(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Unlikely and ungrammatical phrase. Not helpful as a redirect.Jayjg^(talk)05:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Unlikely search term, artifact of a very bad page move.User:Steven J. Anderson (talk)07:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I agree with the nominator.Marokwitz (talk)07:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.Uncle Dick (talk)17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as confusing; broader concept than the target.Bridgeplayer (talk)17:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jaime_Herrera

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 wasSpeedy close No longer a redirect. Non-admin closure.Ten Pound Hammer,his otters and a clue-bat •^{(Otters want attention)}17:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Jaime_HerreraJaime_Herrera →Philippine_Airlines_Flight_434(links to redirect •history •stats) 

Suggest deletion. There is NO connection between Herrera and the flight. Herrera is a current state House member and serious congressional candidate for WA-3, and her opponent,Denny Heck, has a Wiki entry. It's apparently a malicious attempt to prevent all but the most skilled Wiki editors of making an article on her. I (for one) am not a skilled enough Wiki editor to make a page on Herrera with this infuriating redirect: after scanning the article edit section, I couldn't even find the redirect to tag it! However, after visitinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jaime%20Herrera&redirect=no, I discovered that someone nameduser:WhisperToMe was behind the redirection in the first place. His many contributions to Wikipedia in the past behind aside, I believe this is a serious piece of vandalism and merits equally serious disciplinary action (although, of course, it's your call). Please help! Thanks.Wikibojopayne (talk)04:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Nominator has already turned the redirect into an article, so this is probably good for a speedy close. (The article is not about the same person as the redirect was, but I doubt the other Herrera is notable enough for any disambiguation.)
  To nominator: please follow thetwo-step nomination process more closely in the future, and try toassume good faith on the behalf of other users such asWhisperToMe, at least to the extent of reading the redirect creation summary and bothering to find the connection in the target article.Sideways713 (talk)12:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]