Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

November 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on November 4, 2013.

T-Squeezy[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. WJBscribe (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the target and no obvious connection. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 23:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - it's a nickname for Taylor Swift that originated on YouTube. Lots of chatter out there eg [1] but nothing even approaching a reliable source. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Whispering Wind. "Reliable source" is not the threshold for a redirect form an alternative name; being am unofficial nicknames is a plenty good enough reason to keep a redirect. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#DELETE point 8 ("novel or very obscure synonym"). --BDD (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BDD. If this redirect had more page views that it does (Page view statistics over the last 90 days), I could warrant this redirect existing, but not with that few views. Steel1943 (talk) 05:21, 12 November 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.

1989 Copa Interamericana[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. --BDD (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1989 edition is different to the 1988 edition. Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070929095643/http://www.conmebol.com/comunicados_ver.jsp?id=3624&slangab=S Brayan Jaimes (talk) 15:18, 4 November 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.

1972 Copa Interamericana[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. --BDD (talk) 17:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 1972 edition is different to the 1971 edition. Source: http://web.archive.org/web/20070929095643/http://www.conmebol.com/comunicados_ver.jsp?id=3624&slangab=S Brayan Jaimes (talk) 15:16, 4 November 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.

List of English football transfers 2001–02 2001[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. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. It is malplaced and not needed and the title is not a plausible search term. Mentoz86 (talk) 11:08, 4 November 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.

Taylor Swift "Fearless"[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 keep. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous redirect. Where are the redirects for "Taylor Swift "Red"" etcetera?--Launchballer 10:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC) November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My fault, I shouldn't edit Wikipedia while annoyed - I call the above an implausible typo.--Launchballer 17:19, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not even a typo. Someone who doesn't know how Wikipedia titles articles might think this is where to find it. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't particularly buy slippery-slope arguments for redirects. As is long established, there's no harm in having a lot of redirects. We make a limited exception for things that would overwhelm those who maintain redirects (e.g. useless foreign-language redirects: we could in theory have hundreds-thousands of redirects to every single article), but no, if someone wants to go ahead and create Taylor Swift "Red", etc., then there's nothing wrong with that. I doubt this redirect will be particularly helpful, but there's certainly the potential, and its existence isn't confusing anyone or making our jobs harder. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 07:43, 9 November 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.

Thigh gap[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. --BDD (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned on target page. (While this term does have a meaning, it's a pretty trivial concept that probably doesn't deserve a Wikipedia article.) Robofish (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I created the redirect to avoid getting a separate article, because the topic is frequently covered in the media in recent times, so is objectively not trivial in terms of scope and pervasiveness of coverage.[2][3]. That may not be the best possible target, but it was one that seemed like a good candidate.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not mentioned at target. Siuenti (talk) 10:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I suppose a technical retarget would be Adductor hiatus but I strongly suspect that this is not what is being sought!! A plausible alternative target would be Female body shape. I think that we should have something on this subject but at present we don't and it is misleading to take the reader to a target with no relevant content. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could fix that in 3 minutes, of course. I'm inclined either to do that or create a separate article at thigh gap so that a drama-filled AfD can follow.--Milowent • hasspoken 11:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redirect in favour for creation of new article. I am tempted to write it myself. I have started on it here.--Launchballer 23:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a master of procedure here, but if you just make the redirect into an article, it would seem to moot the current discussion.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would, and this discussion would be speedy closed. Creating an article is always a good solution. However, if there is limited content than adding it as a new section to Female body shape (or elsewhere) may be somewhat better and we would just retarget the redirect. The Whispering Wind (talk) 15:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should probably qualify why my article is short, I had ten minutes available at the end of a lesson so I decided to write it fairly quickly. Obviously that will be expanded and I want to get a DYK on it. I would recommend that the redirect be kept until the article is good enough for articlespace, though (I won't be moving it until it's DYK eligible).--Launchballer 17:20, 7 November 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_November_4&oldid=1138579213"