Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 February 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 7, 2013

Mobilesage[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy deleted by Anthony Bradbury. --BDD (talk) 00:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page to which this redirects is up for deletion - I don't think this title itself would meet notability requirements -- nonsense ferret 22:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: If the target is deleted, the redirect can be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G8. There is no need to nominate both. On the other hand, if the target is kept, closing the redirect nomination just creates more bureaucracy. And in my view, this redirect might actually make sense, at least as long as the target exists. Keφr 11:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the target exists, this is a good redirect to it, "mobilesage" being the title of their website. I have no opinion on whether the target is notable, but if it is deleted this redirect will be speedily deleted as Keφr notes. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf --hydrox (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Keφr has said, it will be deleted if the article isn't. If the article isn't deleted, there's no good reason to delete it. Redirects don't need to meet notability requirements in any meaningful sense. --BDD (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the target article was deleted a while ago, I've tagged this one for speedy deletion. --BDD (talk) 22:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that fella, everyday is a new learning experience! ---- nonsense ferret 22:48, 14 February 2013 (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.

ਸਾਲਾ ਕੁਤਾ ਹਿੰਦੁਸਤਾਨੀ ਏਜੰਟ[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Delete Obscure and possibly harmful. Tikiwont (talk) 09:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“Sālā kutā hindustānī ejaṇṭ” is clearly not his name. Does anyone know what this refers to? If not, I suggest deletion. Gorobay (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've asked for comment on the destination talk page and also invited the redirect's creator to comment here (which you should have done), as they are the most likely to know the answer. For what it's worth though, none of the machine translation services I've tried will translate "ਸਾਲਾ ਕੁਤਾ ਹਿੰਦੁਸਤਾਨੀ ਏਜੰਟ". Thryduulf (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response The redirect’s creator has created many redirects from many foreign languages; I assume he does not know the languages but instead copies and pastes from the first paragraph (which would explain the occasional extra punctuation, e.g. জ্যোতি বসু,). Nevertheless, you are right, so I left a message for the editor who originally added the Gurmukhi to the article. Gorobay (talk) 20:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "hindustani ejant" might mean "Indian agent", and "kutā" looks like Hindi "kuttā", "dog". So it looks like a personal attack to me. Certainly it's not his name in any language, which is what it was alleged to be in this edit [1] I tried to find the embassy of the Punjabi wikipedia but they don't seem to have one. Siuenti (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2013 (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 best South Park episode[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was Speedy deleted. Although the G11 tag was debatable, this was acutally deleted under criterion R3 (by user:Yunshui) which clearly does not apply (the redirect was created in 2011, which is not "recently"). Thryduulf (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redirect title is patently not neutral, and, even though the target lead mentions (in an unsourced statement) that the episode "is considered by fans to be one of the best of the entire series," this does not strike me as nearly enough to justify redirecting "The best South Park episode" there, as if the matter were one of objective fact. The redirect may even have been a joke (it was created on April 1, notice). It Is Me Here t / c 17:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH there are a wide variety of opinino in what is considered the "best" episode. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete? If I'm reading the criterion correctly, I think this might qualify for WP:CSD#G11, since it is almost like this redirect is promoting that episode. Steel1943 (talk) 22:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if redirects can be deleted for the criterion I presented; however, the title in itself sounds like a promotion. I'm going to go ahead and put the {{db-g11}} tag on the redirect to see if an administrator might see it this was as well. Steel1943 (talk) 06:43, 11 February 2013 (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.

Geānlǣht Rīcu American[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was delete all. JohnCD (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign-language names redirecting to the article on the United States. "Redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created." Only English, Spanish and French enjoy official recognition in any of the States. These are redirects from Old English, Finnish and Icelandic names, respectively. None of them are official or even spoken to much any degree in the present day. (I also found a bunch of non-official but locally spoken language name redirects listed here; let me know if you think they should be also nominated.) --hydrox (talk) 08:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete languages unrelated to the US (not English, French, Spanish, Pennsylvaniaish, Native American) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The eighth reason for deletion says “redirects from a foreign language title to a page whose subject is unrelated to that language (or a culture that speaks that language) should generally not be created”. The intent is that such redirects be deleted. Gorobay (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2013 (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.

Wikipedia:Minnesota Functionals[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's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was speedy delete. Redirects created when fixing a page created in or moved to the wrong namespace are covered by criterion G6. This is not an uncommon error. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect from wikipedia space to mainspace is not appropriate as it is not a likely search term. --Bduke (Discussion) 03:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This appears to be a mistake by the user as he moved an article in his user space to wikipedia space and then moved it to article space. I have edited the redirect in his user space but thought I would bring the wikipedia space redirect here, as redirects from wikipedia to main space are quite unusual, although it can be probably speedied. --Bduke (Discussion) 04:07, 7 February 2013 (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.

'M[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'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 M (disambiguation) which mentions 'm and can be expanded if necessary. Tikiwont (talk) 09:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted, as it redirects to a target page about a different topic. While 'M is similar to MissingNo., it is not the same thing and it should not be redirected. The existence of the redirect encourages the misconception that all glitch Pokémon are MissingNo., which is not the case. SnorlaxMonster 12:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "'M" does not appear to be used at all on the current page, nor in the glitches section of the main article (to which it used to point). There is apparently no consensus to include anything on the character in either place, so retarget to To be, the article that covers it's use as a contraction of "am". I haven't looked, but I'd be tempted to say that this would be the primary usage for the search term even if we have something about the Pokemon (although this may be because I read a lot of linguistics articles but know virtually nothing about Pokemon). Thryduulf (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to M (disambiguation) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does any item (besides the Pokémon and the contraction) in the list ever include the apostrophe? Anyway, this is probably the least surprising target, if there must be a target. Gorobay (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_7&oldid=1142587451"