This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 4, 2012
- 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 wasno consensus. Any suggestions to move any page to a new target is beyond the scope of RFD, and discussion of such suggestions should continue onto the appropriate article talk pages. —ξxplicit22:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget tocul-de-sac. The primary meaning of a "dead end" is a road that has no outlet. Our article on that topic iscul-de-sac, but it could just as easily be atdead end.Dead End is a disambiguation page focusing on creative works with the title "Dead End".PowersT15:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. There is no clear and convincing evidence that readers entering "dead end" in the search box are looking forcul-de-sac. Due to the inherent ambiguity of the term itself, redirecting to the disambiguation page is a better option. Also see discussion atTalk:Dead End#Requested move which touches on this redirect.older ≠wiser22:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, all the current inbound links todead end refer either to the road or to the generic concept of a strategy that is blocked so we do have alittle idea of how readers are using the term. That said,Dead End (the disambiguation page) includescul-de-sac as the very first entry on the page. That seems pretty reasonable to me for an ambiguous term.
Really, though, this is the wrong forum. This debate should be carried out atTalk:Dead End where editors can also benefit from the opinions offered in the recent Move debate. RfD is unnecessary.Rossami(talk)23:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply] - Note I've just createdDead end (road) andDead end road as redirects toCul-de-sac,Dead end street already redirects there.Thryduulf (talk)17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Retarget to cul-de-sac, but at the same time, keep in mind that not all road ends are cul-de-sacs - there are also hammerheads and plain old road ends without turnarounds.D O N D E groovily Talk to me20:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The articlecul-de-sac gives me the impression that only in the U.S. is that a common distinction; in other countries, the term is applied regardless of whether there is a turnaround or not.PowersT00:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as it is now -Dead End is already a disambiguation page, as there are a lot of things named or called "dead end". Makes the most sense for the lowercase version to redirect to the same disambig page. --V2Blast (talk)19:31, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Movecul-de-sac todead end. As the OP said "it could just as easily be at dead end" - more specifically, most people in the US never say and most do not understand "cul-de-sac". But the article has many more problems besides violatingWP:CRITERIA,WP:COMMONNAME, and theprinciple of least astonishment. It also violatesWP:DICTIONARY with its ridiculously long list of information about the term in other languages andWP:OR with its nonsense about etymology, as a short look in some English dictionaries at www.onelook.com and in French dictionaries shows. --Espoo (talk)21:03, 13 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.
Charity International
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasno consensus to delete.Rossami(talk)22:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Charity International sold its naming rights to another organization when it changed its name to Global Happiness Organization--including its urls. Therefore having "Charity International" redirect to Global Happiness Organization will create undue confusion for people looking for information about Global Happiness Organization as there is an additional organization functioning under that name now with the exact same urls. That organization is not notable enough for a Wikipedia page of its own though, so replacing the redirect with a new article isn't an option.Jeremy112233 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Jeremy112233 (talk)15:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Am proposing the redirect page for deletion.Jeremy112233 (talk)15:10, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for several reasons:
- The target is about the organisation formerly called "Charity International" and so this is a very likely search term.
- The article was at the title from 2009 until about 30 minutes before this nomination so the redirect is an important part of the attribution history that we need to maintain per our license
- There will be external links to the old title for probably many years to come (indeed it's usually a few months before all the actively maintained mirrors catch up, and much longer for lesser- and unmaintained mirrors).
- If there is a potential confusion with another organisation using either name then this should be noted in the article, where people following the redirect will find it and be educated. If the potential confusion isn't significant enough for mention there then it's absolutely not significant enough to warrant deleting redirects.
- Maintaining the redirect discourages the creation of an article about a non-notable organisation.Thryduulf (talk)18:05, 6 May 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.
New Jersey County College
[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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion wasspeedily deleted perWP:CSD#G7 byuser:Malik Shabazz.Thryduulf (talk)18:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The redirect might cause confusion" (reason 2 above): the name looks as if it would be the name of a specific college. The redirect appears to have been created for use by theGloucester County College article, and is not used by any other. In copy editing the article I am linking to the list by piping expressions like "County College in New Jersey", as less confusing. --Stfg (talk)10:29, 4 May 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.
