This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 21, 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was delete. --
BDD (
talk)
19:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
The phrase "Simia maxima" does not appear on the
King Kong article, nor does it appear anywhere else online in connection with King Kong as far as I can tell. I can see Simia maxima being a joke scientific name for King Kong, but I think it unlikely that users will come up with this joke scientific name independently when searching for King Kong, especially considering that the phrase does not seem to appear in any of the relevant media. As such, I recommend that this redirect be deleted.
Neelix (
talk)
16:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete I don't believe you. A film from the internet era, that's big budget, heavily promoted worldwide, and a google search with -wikipedia (which eliminates us from results) doesn't get anything? I don't think so.
Ego White Tray (
talk)
02:00, 22 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.
Genocide of the Kurds in Turkey
- 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 per use of the term in the target article.
Number
5
7
21:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
Which genocide is this? Never heard of before. A denomination for something that has not occurred, not notable, not present in multiple independent reliable sources; not much of a rationale for this action is necessary, in my humble opinion. This is pure
anti-Turkish propaganda.
Why should I have a User Name? (
talk)
15:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Read it again please. --
Why should I have a User Name? (
talk)
18:44, 27 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. This is a long-standing redirect, over 8 years old, and such redirects are only deleted if they are in some way harmful.
WP:RFD#HARMFUL states "Therefore consider the deletion only of either really harmful redirects or of very recent ones.". Redirects are purely search aids and do not need to be backed up by reliable sources. No policy-compliant reason for deletion has been advanced nor is there any suggestion of harm. This appears in the target and is thus an useful search term. NAC.
The Whispering Wind (
talk)
16:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
There are not multiple "independent" reliable sources for this name.
Why should I have a User Name? (
talk)
15:07, 21 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was speedy keep. This redirect was recently nominated with the same rationale. Discussion was closed on 1 June 2014. (non-admin closure) —
Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (
talk•
track)
22:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
It should not be moved to
Geo TV because Geo TV is a network name, whereas
Geo Entertainment itself is a channel like
Geo News,
Geo Super. Please delete this redirect so that we may create it as independent article. Check out
official website of geo entertainment.
UBS
talk
15:01, 21 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's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was keep. The consensus is that there is sufficient connection with Portugal but,in any case, this name is found in the article so it is a valid search term. NAC.
The Whispering Wind (
talk)
17:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
Not particularly Portuguese
The
ChampionMan
1234
03:14, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: You mean "this subject is not related to Portugal." Please use clear language for the benefit of readers.
WhisperToMe (
talk)
04:52, 21 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.
China (historical region)
- 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 retarget to History of China
Number
5
7
21:38, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
reply
The target clearly states that the article is about the People's Republic of China, not a historical region. I know that the PRC article was merged into
China (which was about the historical region) a while ago. But other language versions, especially the Chinese Wikiepdia, retains the separation of the PRC article and the article on the historical region, thus i don't see a need for this redirect now.
The
ChampionMan
1234
03:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
History of China, where several past regions are documented (alternate targets are
Inner China and
North China Plain) --
65.94.171.126 (
talk)
06:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Delete since there's no history and this is a useless redirect. No one is going to search for this exact title, though they might search for e.g.
Historical China, which I just created. --
N
Y
Kevin
23:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
History of China. The default for redirects is to keep unless harmful. This, as retargeted, is harmless and potentially useful. This is a long-standing redirect, over 9 years old, and the original title of the article. Conversely, deleting could be harmful due to breaking long-standing external links.
The Whispering Wind (
talk)
17:27, 28 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.