Jump to content

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 14

[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 14, 2015.

AQOS

[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. Until Wikipedia covers another topic referred to as AQOS, this is entirely appropriate. --BDD (talk) 15:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is very misleading as AQOS does not only refer to this British quiz but also to Architecture Quality of Service, one of the most respectable French consultation companies. I request that this mistake be corrected as soon as possible. AQOS: Des solutions pour contrôler la disponibilité et la performance de votre SI 176.92.183.71 (talk) 20:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep since the other article doesn't exist. However, if the subject without an article is mentioned in a different article, I'm not opposed to either the current target having a hatnote or the redirect converted into a disambiguation page. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per exactly what Steel1943 said. Is "Architecture Quality of Service" a translation from a French name? I do not see any hits on Google for this phrase which are not about quality of service that happened to have the word "architecture" right in front. Using a machine translation, I get a hit from "qualité de service de l'architecture" pointing to Ordre des architectes du Québec but this is a longshot for this redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
However, "Application Quality of Service" comes up on Google when searching for "AQOS". Not worth an article, but there is an Applications section in Quality of Service that might be worth a hatnote. Ivanvector (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AQOS: Architecture Quality of Service 176.92.183.71 (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, aqos.fr is a French website for managing "SI" (as if I needed to be managed by them, my wife does that). Its site says it is [marché de la supervision et de la gestion de la qualité de service des Systèmes d’Information (SI)] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) that is roughly, to work for the supervision and improvement of the Quality of Service of Information Technology systems. As far as I can tell, it has nothing to do with the Systeme Internationale of measurements. Si Trew (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a weird one. The French website is about Information Technology but includes lots of nice pictures of Architecture. I don't think they do anything with kinda the built environment but are using it as a metaphor for computer architecture, but not 100% sure, they might provide information systems for architectural companies. The info on their website is so vague it is hard to say 100%, but I think it is the former. Si Trew (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Looking at their [Faites marquant] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) ("Notable projects") page, it becomes obvious it is indeed computer architecture that is their speciality. Apparently they have 31 enmployees. So not particularly notable then. Si Trew (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Should I take this as libel towards our company? 176.92.183.71 (talk) 03:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you shouldn't. [J'accuse] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), if you will: now I know your company's IP address, but not your name. I said quite clearly that this is not self-promotion, having investigated it. I am saying that your company is not WP:N by Wikipedia standards. You are perfectly entitled to have a website and nobody is doubting that, but there are millions of small companies that are not WP:N: I have worked for several of them. If any fact is incorrect, you are welcome to correct it, but as an interested party I should advise against that. In what sense is it libellous to comment about a small company? I didn't say it was a one man band. And since Wikipedia is based in the US, you are (I presume) in France and I am in Hungary I don't know what jurisdiction you would do it in anyway. If there is any incorrect information you are welcome to correct it, but as an interested party I should advise against it. Am I correct in assuming that you do computer architecture? It is a question of WP:N, notability, one of the three pillars of Wikipedia. I am not sure if you took "weird one" to mean the company, I am not saying your company is weird, but that the redirect is a bit weird. I'm sorry if you took it that way. Thank you for contributing. Si Trew (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Non, ce n'est pas la compagnie, c'est le redirect, c'est tout. [J'accuse] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). Et maintenant, je connais l'addresse IP de votre compagnie, mais je ne sais pas son nom. Mon plaisir, enregistrer. J'avais récherché est je connais ce n'est pas un self-promo, ce n'est pas vous, mais un editeur a crée cette redirecte: c'est pas la fautte de la compagnie mais la redirecte. Un de les trois pillars de Wikipedia c'est WP:N, notability, est je m'excuse mais une petite compagnie c'est pas notable, c'est pas WP:N. Il y avait milliards des petites compagnies qui n'est pas "notable". Je vais dire "mon erreur" si on vous offendre, mais c'est pas la compagnie, mais le redirecte. Excusez-moi, m'sieur, la francaise affreuse, je parle en anglais et hongrois, quotidienne, et oublier mon francais! Si Trew (talk) 08:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh some good comes of it, I've tied together Léon Bloy who wrote an essay called Je m'accuse in 1900, according to his article, tied him into the DAB at J'accuse (disambiguation) and created the redirect to section at Je m'accuse. Not sure I marked that as R to section, will back check.Si Trew (talk) 09:03, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AQOS should be a disambiguation page because not even one of the ten first Google results is about A Question of Sport. [1] 78.87.40.250 (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I completely fail to see how Google's search results have to do with anything at WP:RFD. We spend time here to improve our search results (at least I hope we do), Google's are their own affair. (And they tend to follow Wikipedia anyway: when I search for things on Google, I constantly get purple links because lo and behold they are articles or redirects or DABs I have looked up on Wikipedia to suggest here.) In short: We lead, they follow. Not the reverse. 20:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: The link you gave is a search on google.gr, which unsurprisingly gives Μετάφραση αυτής της σελίδας, which is the Greek name for this company (at least according to them). My first result is for AQOS - Page d'accueil, that is, the company. I also note that if I check with google.co.uk – and bearing in mind that Google is in the news in the UK for skewing results – two have been removed under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. We don't follow Google: they follow us. They're a search engine not an information provider per se. Si Trew (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You must have done something wrong. “Μετάφραση αυτής της σελίδας” means “Translate this webpage”. 78.87.40.250 (talk) 23:06, 16 April 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.

Hippocite

[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. Deryck C. 16:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How do we know we aren't talking about Hippocrates? WP:SURPRISE. Delete. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made the hipocite page redirect to Hypocrisy because it sounds more like "Hypocrite" than "Hippocrates". "Hipocrite", in my eyes, is a common miss spelling of Hypocrite. You can remove/redirect the page if you disagree. Anarchyte (talk)
  • Keep as is Yahoo, Google and Bing all include search result for "hypocrite" when "hypocite" is entered into the search bar. This seems to be a common misspelling, and I think the redirect is useful and will do the most good redirecting to its current target. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a case where a hatnote might be needed on the determined target result of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I could understand someone mispelling "hypocrite" as "hypocite" but, keeping WP:RTYPO in mind, "hippocyte" is a bit much to have to account for. It seems to me like a case of the blind leading the deaf, kind of causing itself to enter mainstream usage like what Steel said. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Zeke, the Mad Horrorist. I am now convinced that this redirect might cause more harm than good being a plausible misspelling for multiple topics. That, and as far as I know, disambiguation pages are not created for list of misspellings, but someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RTYPO. One would need to make at least three typos to get from Hippocite to either Hippocrates or hypocrite. Seeing the ambiguity here and the sheer unlikeliness of making three typos, it'd be better off to have this deleted. Tavix |  Talk  16:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as implausible typo.--Lenticel (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can't we hatnote between Hypocrates and Hypocrite? But I am not sure about the "Hippo'" (horse) bit for that since "Hypo" means essentially "exaggerated" or "much larger" and not "horse" and I don't think is etymologocilly related at all. We have Hippodrome, for example, as a stadium where horses run. I agree it should be deleted if we can't sort out this mess. Si Trew (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if it meant anything presumably it would mean presumably From the horse's mouth, but that would be a mix of Greek and Latin, essentially a Portmanteau word. Si Trew (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Comment. I seem to recall reading a long time ago, and I can't source this as it was in print, that "hypocrisy" is one of the most commonly misspelled words in English (as Hypocricy which follows the general pattern). So perhaps this is a likely typo. The most commonly misspelled word is, ironically, "misspelled"? people miss the double S. But that was presumably a survey of English teachers or something who would have a different bias from whether you looked at corpora of newspapers or something, or the Grauniad. Si Trew (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Steel1943 is right that we don't generally dab terms that are just misspellings. I don't know of a single instance. This is too out-there of a typo to really make sense of what a reader might be looking for. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 21 April 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 Ice Age Movies

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 28#The Ice Age Movies

Auroconf

[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 Autoconf. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing and unhelpful redirect that isn't mentioned at the target article. It seems to be a fan group? Tavix |  Talk  03:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MAD doesn't apply. None of the history from that article is present at the target article. Tavix |  Talk  14:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It exists as part of the edit history of the article in a past version, and that edit history is available and perusable, so the content that was merged there is available. You can just move it to a history subpage (one of the recommedations of wP:MAD ) which would eliminate the mainspace redirect -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing from that article at Sri Aurobindo. There is nothing that needs to be attributed because there isn't anything that needs attributing. It's a non-issue. Tavix |  Talk  18:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was merged into the page in 2007 [2] so exists as part of the history of the article. Part of it was still in the article over half a year and many many edits later [3]; The integration into the article at that point means that unless you hide the revisions that contain this information, it is there, so these edit contributions need to be kept around. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to attribute all contributions to the current article. If there is a contribution that later gets deleted, it's no longer a contribution to the current article because it doesn't exist in the article's current form. That is why we are allowed to delete things. If we had to keep every contribution ever made to the encyclopedia, we wouldn't ever be allowed to delete anything. We don't have an issue with deleting Auroconf because nothing from that article is contributing to Sri Aurobindo. Nothing. Therefore, it can be deleted because there isn't anything we need to keep for attribution purposes. Tavix |  Talk  14:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nol; we would be allowed to delete anything that wasn't merged elsewhere. Most things are not merged elsewhere, so they can be easily and safely deleted. If we delete the merge target, then the merge source can also be safely deleted, as the target article has been deleted (and its contribution history also deleted). This is not the case in this instance, since this is a result of a merger. Anyone can rollback to any version that is not revision deleted in the article history. As such all prior revisions that are accessible to the general readership/editorship needs to have their contribution history properly attested to. Deleting this and then someone coming along an pulling the data out of the page history, or rolling back to a revision with it on the page means that attribution will be broken. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument is falling apart. You admit that we are allowed to delete things that wasn't merged elsewhere. That would allow us to delete Auroconf because there isn't anything from that page that is merged to Sri Aurobindo. Tavix |  Talk  14:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it falling apart. I've stated from the beginning that WP:MAD articles that have been merged cannot be deleted because they are required for attribution for their merged articles. If the merged article is deleted, then the attribution is no longer required. This is the same as revision hiding all revisions where the merged information is available. If the edit history is available, then the content of the merger is available, so the attribution is required to be kept around. If you delete the revisions, then it is no longer available. If you delete a merged article, then all revisions requiring attribution are no longer available, so the source of the merger is no longer required because the target was deleted. IF an article has never been merged then it is never impacted by WP:MAD so can be delete without concern as to attribution of other articles. There is no inconsistency. There is only GFDL and Creative Commons, which we should not be violating just for the fun of it. The material is available from the article history of Sri Aurobindo which any reader can access through page history. Which any editor can revive by rollback or copying it out of the past version. Therefore it requires the attribution history to remain available, since the revisions and data remain available. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed your statement seems to imply that WP:SPLICE is not needed to splice entire histories in most cases when cut-and-paste moves happen, because old revisions that do not affect current versions should not be required to be kept as contribution history. This is the same as of saying that merged content contribution history does not need to be kept around. Do you believe that SPLICE is overly generous in merging entire edit histories and not just recent history? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 01:20, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is exactly like SPLICE, in keeping contribution history with the articles where the contributions are added. If you find a 10 year old cut and paste, but the current version of the article has no content from the version from 10 years ago still around, it appears to me, that from your own statement, you don't need to keep such contribution history around, since it is no longer related to the current content of the article. But a merge is a cut and paste of a separate article into the current article, so is the same as a cut-and-paste move, in relation to contribution history attribution. The content of the merged article was cut and pasted into the destination article. This is the same case as with SPLICE-ing cut-and-paste moves, since that is essentially what happened with the merged information. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Tavix is right about attribution (either that or else I and other are quite mistaken). But will Auroconf realistically ever be mentioned at the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I just reevaluated my stance, and looked up the term "auroconf" again using a search engine, and it actually seems as though it is a forum about yoga in general, and not exclusive to this target. So, without further ado, I change my stance to retarget to Autoconfig as a possible misspelling of "Autoconf delete since it could be a possible misspelling for Autoconfig as a variation of "Autoconf", but Autoconf is its own article and not a redirect to Autoconfig. Steel1943 (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retarget to Autoconf, I was thinking of that but didn't mention it, but that would seem like a likely {{R from typo}}, R and T being next door neighbours. Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not just on the QWERTY but the QWERTZ that I have and the AZERTY, for that matter. I can't think of a (Latin alphabet) keyboard layout where they are not adjacent. Si Trew (talk) 02:47, 16 April 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.

Şehzade Abdullah (son of Suleiman I)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 22#Şehzade Abdullah (son of Suleiman I)

Hafsa Sultan

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 24#Hafsa Sultan

Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 24#Hatice Sultan (daughter of Ahmed III)

XHICG-TV

[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) 15:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfD'd on October 4, 2014. Pageviews have fallen off 90% since then and the article is no longer linked from article space. Misspelling of intended callsign XHIGG-TV (redirects to same location). There is no XHICG-TV in Mexico. Raymie (t • c) 02:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. If you touch type G and C are on the same finger, index finger of the left hand, depending on your keyboard layout. C should be on your ring finger, but if that's busy doing Wikipedia makup etc I can quite see that a slip from G to C is possible. Also when people are on small mobile devices they can't always use the correct fingers (I hate my BlackBerry). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs) 06:09, 14 April 2015
Worth noting: Mexican television stations have assigned calls often based on their location. XHHES, XHHMS, XHHSS, XHHMA and XHHO are all television stations in the same city. A difference of one letter is a bigger difference than you might think. Raymie (t • c) 03:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does no harm. It doesn't get as many as the one below but still averages a hit every two days or so. The only reason to delete – and I am arguing against myself – is if you think people are typoing it for some other station/callsign and get a WP:SURPRISE. If so, what would that station be? Si Trew (talk) 06:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - misleading, apples-to-oranges. There is no station at callsign XHICG-TV and the callsign has no relation to the target - it's not a former name, it's not a station with the same ownership, it's not commonly known by this name, etc., and generally I think that redirects from unusual misspellings of this sort of identifier should not be kept as they're not dictionary words and they serve no real purpose. G to C is indeed an extraordinary typo, considering that the very next keystroke is another G, so the typo is I-C-G instead of I-G-G, which is extremely unlikely no matter your keyboard layout. Ivanvector (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm being persuaded by Ivanvector, but not very much, I am not sure about that because one does not kinda think ahead in that way (I am on a QWERTZ layout by the way). The fingers kinda follow the thought, as if I ever thought before I typed something! So I rule myself out of this one and struck my !vote above, but I think it is quite marginal. Si Trew (talk) 05:30, 15 April 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.

XHSS-TV

[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) 19:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfD'd on August 15, 2014 and retargeted given that it was getting some daily stats. Since then pageviews have fallen off by half and nothing links here. The intended callsign was XHHSS-TV which redirects to the same location. There is no XHSS-TV in Mexico. Raymie (t • c) 02:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. By your own statement, you are hoist with your own petard: this gets hits: in fact it gets about one a day, the max being four a day from grok.se on 26 March, but consistently gets a couple of hits a day on average. Deleting it would be harmful. Correct and useful are different things: were everyone to type things perfectly redirects would not need to exist. Si Trew (talk) 05:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no station is identified by this callsign; redirecting it to a specific television network is nonsense. Ivanvector (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I can see your reasoning (presumably WP:RFD#D2 confusing) but the fact is it gets hits, and above noise level, so presumably there is an external website that links to it somehow. I don't know how we'd be able to redirect it sensibly, but I see no harm in it being where it stands, marking as {{R from incorrect name}} in them meantime, per User:Raymie, but without prejudice to this dicussion of course. Si Trew (talk) 05:18, 16 April 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.

User:Awolf58/The Catalyst

[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 The Catalyst. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from userspace to mainspace. Not appropriate or useful. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget per Ivanvector. I did search but didn't find that. WP:CNR but a valid one in this case. Si Trew (talk) 05:34, 15 April 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.

Head strong (Linkin Park song)

[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) 15:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that Linkin Park ever did a song by this name. In particular, it seems that an early demo version by the band Trapt is mistaken for a Linkin Park recording since it apparently seems that Chester Bennington sings it, when in fact he does not. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:57, 14 April 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.

User:Awolf58/Rob Bourdon

[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. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 18:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect from userspace to mainspace. Not appropriate or useful. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:RFD#D5, makes no sense, and the consensus here is to disfavour WP:CNRs in general, I think, although we make exceptions in, er, exceptional cases. This isn't one of them. Si Trew (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a page created in userspace and later moved to main space, then redirected to an appropriate section of the current target. Unless Awolf58 wants to delete it under WP:G7, this is a valid case for a cross-namespace redirect. NOTE: this is a redirect to section, Twinkle didn't pick it up. Ivanvector (talk) 19:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ivanvector. I think my argument is valid but wrong. WP:CNRs should generally be discouraged, but if an editor has the gumption to create an article, that should be encouraged. I tend to do that in Draft namespace these days, but I think that is kinda new (I think actually the Wikimedia software allows you to create a namespace off the top of your hat, but it was not well recognised) so we cannot expect all editors to know that, and creating it in user space and moving it is perfectly normal procedure. Si Trew (talk) 05:38, 15 April 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 Sword (2005 demo)

[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) 15:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They don't appear to have had a demo of that name released that year. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:51, 14 April 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.

Steven Brazile

[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) 15:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find evidence that anyone with this name is important regarding Richard Simmons. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As far as I can tell, Stephen (or Steven) Brazile is a notorious criminal from St Louis that briefly hit the headlines for committing a crime so cack-handedly that he was immediately caught. If he is notable for that he should have his own article, but none of my searches indicated any connexion with Richard Simmons. I am not sure if WP:BLP comes into play here? Si Trew (talk) 05:43, 14 April 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.

Leroy, artist

[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 Leroy (musician). --BDD (talk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many artists named Leroy. This refers to only one of them. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but maybe hatnote. We don't have Leroy (artist) to DAB it to. WP:NOTFINISHED. We do have the artist LeRoy Neiman as an article, but I think that is all we have. It could possibly go to the DAB at Leroi which includes both spellings (the Y and the I) on its brief list of entries. Si Trew (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to DAB it but not sure quite how yet. Si Trew (talk) 11:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Xqbot, in this case. These things usually happen as a result of WP:BOLD moves (seems to be the case here) or vandalism, not actually the bot malfunctioning. I wonder if maybe the bot should be programmed to notify someone and/or populate a maintenance category rather than fixing the redirects itself? Ivanvector (talk) 14:56, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support the maintenance category idea. RFC maybe? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:20, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my Keep, but still not sure the retarget is the best solution... but Weak retarget as above, unless I can think of anything better. I'm still inclined to DAB it but not sure quite what that would look like yet. Si Trew (talk) 01:27, 16 April 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.

To Devour a Predator

[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 devour. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not another name for the show; not a reasonably-similar name by which people might search for it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed Barry Hines. A liar should have a good memory. Si Trew (talk) 11:33, 15 April 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 Mysteries of the Banjo-Kazooie Series

[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) 14:59, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's capitalized made me think it might have been a mini-documentary or something, but I searched it verbatim on Google and came back empty-handed. Other than that, not a likely search term and not mentioned in the target article. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. In I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, one popular game is Swannee Whistle and Kazoo, where too entirely unmusical contestants attempt a popular song on, er, a swannee whistle and a kazoo, for humourous effect at how bad it is. I doubt that is a good target but just throw it out in case someone else can think of something closer. We have Duelling Banjos, and could retaret it there, as there are many versions and I suppose in a sense that is a series: but I think that is stretching it. I'll try to think of a better target. Si Trew (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Banzai any better? That's a DAB, but in particular Banzai (TV series)? Si Trew (talk) 08:28, 14 April 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.

Shanghai Dawn (2010 film)

[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) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistent movie. It's not known when or even if Shanghai Dawn will come out. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't check Shanghai Dawn (2003 film), but that is red also. Si Trew (talk) 06:23, 14 April 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.

User:Thefierydutch1212/Nike quickstrike

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 21#User:Thefierydutch1212/Nike quickstrike

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_14&oldid=1136083211"