This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 30, 2014.
- 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. --BDD (talk)17:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not mentioned in target article.gobonobo+c18:28, 30 June 2014 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasdelete. Normally I'd be hesitant to perhaps contradict a recent AfD decision, but the rationale of the subject being mentioned there is no longer valid. --BDD (talk)17:47, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to comparison page which does not include it. (Background: Article creator also added to the comparison page, when AfD found it not notable, it was closed as redirect while listed at the comparison. Removed a few days ago. —Rhododendritestalk | 16:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- When I made those edits, the Mailtor article had already been redirected to what appeared to be an invalid target and I was unaware of this RfD. This wasn't a straightforward situation per the comments below. Philg88 ♦talk21:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I reverted the Tor article addition and left a message on that talk page before seeing this, but briefly: you basically restored the content of the article/merged it when there was no consensus to do so at the AfD. The sources are quite poor and it furthermore doesn't fit on the Tor page, where it was placed under implementations when it's a hidden service (which are, for the most part, not specifically addressed on the main Tor article). I'm still confused why anybody is defending this redirect/subject when there's barely evidence of this subject's existence nevermind even one single reliable source. First an unusual close as redirect sans consensus to do even that due to the page creator also adding it to a list of websites (a judgment call which, it seems, is within the prerogative of the closer), but now, after the apparent uncontroversial removal from that list and subsequent RfD, the AfDed article's content is addedback to the encyclopedia in an even more prominent venue? --—Rhododendritestalk | 19:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit to some initial confusion here, but I now see thatyou removed the AfD closing redirect target atComparison of webmail providers with the comment that the AfD had decided that Mailtor wasn't notable while the whole point of the redirect outcome was to provide an alternative location for MailTor information. I didn't know that when I first saw this RfD discussion and thought some communication error had occurred with the suggested redirect. Adding Mailtor to the third party section of the Tor article seemed the best alternative redirect as other services such as Vuze, BitTorrent client, Bitmessage anonymous messaging system and TorChat instant messenger are all covered there. The concensus at AfD determined that Mailtor was not sufficiently notable to warrant its own article and should be redirected, it did not say that all mention of Mailtor should be banished from Wikipedia forthwith. Had this RfD gone unchallenged, then the article would effectively have been deleted, which was most definitely not the AfD outcome. Philg88 ♦talk04:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it was an...unusual close. Basically closed as non-notable with no consensus to redirect, but no consensusnot to redirect... so it was closed as redirect -- and only because the person who created this woefully non-notable article also added it to a list. General attitude seems to be that doing so was within a closing admin's prerogative, but that simple local consensus atcomparison of webmail providers that it should not be on the list is all that's necessary to justify deleting via RfD, as it would no longer point anywhere (and indeed, having established it's not notable and there are no reliable sources, should not persist).Granted, I think it's silly that something for which there's barely evidence for its existence should be redirected just because someone added it to a list, rather than the other way around (that the outcome of a discussion determining its non-notability and scant verifiability be reason itself to remove it from the list), but that's not the point here. Regardless, even if we were to say that AfD has no bearing on the article content being used elsewhere, the reason it failed AfD is because there are no reliable sources -- and you're sticking with those same unreliable sources to put the content elsewhere. --—Rhododendritestalk | 06:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Although the references are indeed weak and insufficient to determine notability, they do show that something called Mailtor exists and that it provides web, smtp etc mail services on the Tor network. Tor is important for various reasons so I believe that its only current mail service should be mentioned somewhere. If it isn't then it's no big deal. Philg88 ♦talk07:49, 1 July 2014 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasretarget. --BDD (talk)17:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget toLaika. The obvious topic of "(dog)" is the primary topic article "Laika" which is about a dog. In all cases, it is not the disambiguated article, as it should either redirect to a disambiguation pageLaika (disambiguation) or the primary topic articleLaika, and not the disambiguated article as the disambiguated article is not the primary topic article. --65.94.171.126 (talk)07:07, 30 June 2014 (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.
