Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 6, 2014.

Are You Bidding Yet? Service Mark[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) 14:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect ViperSnake151  Talk  17:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not at target. Wikipedia does not generally recognize service marks, trademarks etc, per WP:TRADEMARK ("Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, in either article text or citations"); to have it in the title is absurd. Are you bidding yet? might be all right, I've never heard of them but I presue this is a slogan used on ads in the US or something: but the "Service Mark" bit is too much, I think. My search at Google brought nothing with this phrase. Si Trew (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Before it was made a redirect, the article was literally about the trademark itself, ridiculously enough. ViperSnake151  Talk  04:45, 18 October 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.

Potpoupri (album)[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) 14:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no album of such name. � (talk) 15:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Implausible redirect. For the record: previous "discussion". —capmo (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The previous "Discussion" was RichFarmbrough, who is always wrong. So by default it should be the opposite of the mischief he and his bots do. Si Trew (talk) 21:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SimonTrew: Please remove or strike that ad hominem. This is the second time today I've had to caution you about inappropriate comments about the same user, any further ones I will simply remove per WP:NPA. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Struck. I didn't see any warning, by the way, but I do realise that arguing vigorously, when written, can seem a lot harsher than if it were face-to-face. I sincerely apologise that it seemed otherwise. Si Trew (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per my argument in the previous discussion: "when a redirect has existed for years we need evidence of it actually causing harm or a detailed explanation why it will (not may) cause harm in future before we should even consider deleting it and we have neither here. When, as Rich Farmbrough demonstrates, the redirect is plausible the burden for deletion becomes significantly higher. That burden becomes much higher again when, as here, the stats show evidence of use. So to sum up we have evidence of plausibility and of use and no evidence of harm, so deletion would be detrimental to the encyclopaedia". Exactly nothing has changed since August. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me, sir, but Rich Farmbrough hasn't demonstrated anything, he just affirmed that it was either a plausible typo (which it is not; letters r and p are quite far from each other on a keyboard) or "an alternative spelling/pronunciation for potpourri", again without providing any evidence for this claim. —capmo (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this is a particularly likely typo (although I've made stranger ones myself), but google searches do show that it is a misspelling that is made (including several by Japanese speakers, perhaps it's a phonological thing?). Also I took into account WP:RFD#KEEP point 5 - someone finds it useful - both Rich Farmbrough and the viewing stats show that this is found useful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Unlikely, but somewhat plausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 04:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apology. I've left an apology at User talk:Rich Farmbrough#Sorry for the ad hom. I didn't mean it as a personal attack, and I'm sorry it came across like that. I can only apologise. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 7 October 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.

吉隆坡[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) 14:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the Chinese population there, but the reason I am nominating this redirect is that we do not have redirects like 柔佛州新山，古晉，亞庇，檳城，莎阿南，馬六甲市 and so on. - TheChampionMan1234 06:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unlikely search term at the English language Wikipedia. G Translate gives me 可以的蠕蟲 as the translation for "can of worms", how accurate that is I cannot tell. Si Trew (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @SimonTrew:LOL, that literally means "a worm that can" as “可以” means that you can do something as opposed to a can of worms, soup etc. - TheChampionMan1234 09:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TheChampionMan1234: Et tu! Even a worm will turn, especially if it is part of a worm drive. Si Trew (talk) 09:31, 6 October 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.

Hexagône[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) 14:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A google search mainly returns Wikipedia mirrors such as TheFreeDictionary - TheChampionMan1234 06:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even fr:Hexagon is just a two-line stub for a proprietary computer program. The correct French for the six-sided plane shape would be fr:Hexagone, which [mirabile dictu] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) is tied up via Wikidata to our Hexagon. Si Trew (talk) 09:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hexagone is an R to Hexagon. It was marked as {{R from alternate language}} and {{R from ASCII}} and something else. I've replaced those with these edits to have it as {{R from misspelling}}}, taking WP:BOLD. "ô" is not in ASCII anyway so that is just wrong. I don't think that affects this discussion. Si Trew (talk) 10:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a sufficiently out-there spelling that if someone types it in, it's pretty unclear what they're trying to search for. --ais523 14:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Comment. I'm the one who created this redirect. I don't have an opinion on whether or not it should be deleted. I would not be offended if it were. It was so long ago I don't remember the circumstances that led me to create it. Foobaz·o< 08:43, 16 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_6&oldid=1083555929"