This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 18, 2015.
- 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)
17:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Delete per
WP:CRYSTAL. You may find a related discussion from May 2015
here. --
Tavix (
talk)
19:58, 18 October 2015 (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. (
non-admin closure)
sst
✈
08:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Implausible redirect
sst
✈
15:33, 10 October 2015 (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 delete. --
BDD (
talk)
17:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Implausible redirect
sst
✈
15:35, 10 October 2015 (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 no consensus. --
BDD (
talk)
17:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Implausible redirect
sst
✈
15:35, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep {{
R from alternate name}} -- slang name for the console
[1] --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
18:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Weak Delete - Not mentioned at the target, and while it may be used as slang, I don't find any
reliable sources using the term. It appears to refer to user(s) at several different sites, and a
mod site itself; either way, perhaps undue promotion.—
Godsy(
TALK
CONT)
19:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- What is it promoting? It's the Wii console by Nintendo, Wii+Ninendo = Wiitendo -- and we already have an article on it, there's no superlatives in the redirect ; this isn't an article, it si a redirect, so reliably sourcing slang redirects is an odd thing to since redirects don't support references, and slang is generally not used in reliable sources. Adding synonyms to the article itself is also odd, since it contravenes making dictionary entries out of articles. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
01:43, 12 October 2015 (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.
List of art historians who happen to be women
- 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.
Der
yck C.
18:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
AFD'd twice, years ago, as a joke phobia from
an old Far Side strip. It was redirected to
List_of_phobias#Jocular_and_fictional_phobias until that section was removed; it now directs to
Specific phobia which has nothing to say about anatidaephobia.
McGeddon (
talk)
19:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
reply
- (I got an "Adding deletion tag to redirect: Failed to save edit: Page is fully protected" warning when nominating this, but I assume this doesn't invalidate the discussion?) --
McGeddon (
talk)
19:41, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
reply
- I put an edit request on the page to add the tag. No, it should not prejudice this discussion.
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
19:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The talk page discussion referred to is
here. It seems that the longstanding section was removed by a consensus of one editor. Since the section was for the most part properly referenced and contains information that readers are obviously looking for, I propose per
WP:PRESERVE that we restore the section and retarget this redirect there. Alternatively, a new list article could be created from the content in that section, and this redirect pointed there. In any case full protection on the redirect should be maintained, according to the history it's actually been deleted ten times and was a frequent target of vandalism.
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
20:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Consensus of two, actually. The issue was that while much of the material was properly cited, it was not suitable for coverage on Wikipedia or the coverage given was
undue. Most of these were neologisms created for humorous effect and used once, but then covered in various lists of phobias in other media. Anatidaephobia is a good example, the term having been created for a comic strip and never used anywhere else, except in discussions of that comic strip and lists of phobia names.--
Srleffler (
talk)
16:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. A good case for speedying. The page has been deleted twelve times and permanently protected against recreation, so how have we even got here? This kind of material is more suitable for Wiktionary, but even there it would probably struggle. Their CFI require three quotations of usage from durably archived sources. I doubt that anybody other than Larson has actually used the word, as opposed to mentioning it (ie, just defining it). I am also in favour of do not restore the list. It is pure cruft, there is no limit to such made up words; a comprehensive list would be huge. Any list should be limited to notable examples of such words (if there are any), that is, words that already have, or could have, an article.
Spinning
Spark
16:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The term lacks notability; content relating to it does not belong anywhere on Wikipedia nor Wiktionary, for the reasons discussed above. The redirect serves to prevent the page from being recreated. If recreation can be prevented by other means, by all means delete the redirect. --
Srleffler (
talk)
16:22, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The redirect does not in any way stop page creation (except by way of confusing the would be creator). It is page protection that stops it being recreated, whether the page exists as a redirect or has been completely deleted.
Spinning
Spark
17:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. Not a notable subject and there isn't a suitable target. --
Tavix (
talk)
18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - We're not talking about any kind of really popular and well-covered fictional concept here (like
death rays,
anti-gravity things, etc). This just isn't particularly notable.
CoffeeWithMarkets (
talk)
22:31, 25 October 2015 (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 delete. --
BDD (
talk)
17:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Redundant. Why would any reader type River in caps.? — |
Gareth Griffith-Jones |
The Welsh
Buzzard| —
11:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per nom. --
Rubbish computer (
HALP!:
I dropped the bass?)
16:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget
River A person using a keyboard with a broken caps lock key might. 野狼院ひさし
u/
t/
c
00:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget to
river -- {{
R from alternate capitalization}} --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
03:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - R.I.V.E.R. does not appear to be an acronym for anything, and hard-retargeting an all-caps redirect just bypasses the search engine. Unnecessary.
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Retarget per the two above. —
烏Γ (
kaw),
18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Ivanvector. —
Kusma (
t·
c)
18:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete per Ivanvector. Someone who types in all caps is probably looking for a topic that's capitalised abnormally, not the ordinary non-proper noun at the base title. That's why, e.g.
BOLD,
GREEN,
BIRD,
WHIP,
COWS, and many other all-caps titles point to disambiguation pages rather than base titles. However, there doesn't seem to be anything at
River (disambiguation) which is normally written in all-caps.
(On the other other hand,
whip (disambiguation) doesn't seem to have any WHIPs either.)
210.6.254.106 (
talk)
19:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
-
Walks plus hits per innings pitched (WHIP).
Ivanvector 🍁 (
talk)
19:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- The other WHIP is a radio station, hence why it is at a disambiguation and not
Walks plus hits per innings pitched. --
Tavix (
talk)
21:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Ah, thanks, missed that.
Struck my incorrect statement.
58.176.246.42 (
talk)
02:29, 26 October 2015 (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.
If you want to know what God thinks about money, just look at the people He gives it to
- 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)
17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
Just an excuse for a POV statement. No incoming links and an unlikely search term.
Spinning
Spark
10:33, 18 October 2015 (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 delete. --
BDD (
talk)
17:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
WP:R#D8. Apparently an effort to promote an obscure protologism. Not mentioned on target, and the only Google hits are for Wikipedia scrapers. I suppose it might be a typo for "pedocement" (a geological term for cement formed through pedocementation, i.e.
cementation (geology) of soil), but that article doesn't use the term pedocementation.
210.6.254.106 (
talk)
06:56, 18 October 2015 (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.
United States presidential election, 2028
- 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. (
non-admin closure) --
Tavix (
talk)
01:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
These are foreign language redirects.
GeoffreyT2000 (
talk)
03:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Delete: not English, or translate, then redirect, delete'll be better, which is a redirect.
333
-blue
03:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep {{
R from alternate language}} original language names, therefore valid search terms. This is a company in China, so will have a Chinese language name, and we have redirects from the real names of things to the English titles used on Wikipedia, because it is logical that one should be able to search under the real name and not just the fake name that people/marketers/linguists/governments invent for use in English. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
04:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Strong keep per 70 &
WP:FORRED; the language of the redirect is clearly related to the target.
210.6.254.106 (
talk)
05:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep, original language name of the company, clearly useful, clearly related language. Creation of this type of foreign language redirects should be encouraged. —
Kusma (
t·
c)
10:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep per
WP:FORRED as the redirect's language has a primary affiliation to the topic. --
Rubbish computer (
HALP!:
I dropped the bass?)
16:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep while
WP:FORRED often is a deletion rational in case like this it does not apply here since a Chinese name for a Chinese company is clearly a Strong connection.--
67.68.163.32 (
talk)
21:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
reply
- Keep seems to be the company's native name --
Lenticel (
talk)
01:08, 19 October 2015 (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.