Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 12, 2012

Demi Lowato[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, R3 by User:Fastily. Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely redirect JayJayTalk to me 23:09, 12 February 2012 (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.

AOL keyword[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 —GFOLEY FOUR!— 17:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term JayJayTalk to me 22:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not too much on this internet term. ApprenticeFan work 04:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: it is just a combination of two relatively unrelated word. P.S.: I added another redirect, as the one initially nominated was created in WP:AfC based on later's existence. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The words are not "relatively unrelated". Fifteen years ago when people still used it, you'd see an AOL keyword advertised instead of a website address. Then people stopped using AOL. Just because everyone here is too young to remember them, doesn't mean they never existed. There were even books written about them if you're going to complain about lack of real references. Gurch (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why do you discard the possibility that some are just too "not American"? Back to the topic: if these keywords are indeed worth mention, they would have been mentioned in AOL. Otherwise they are just too minor for any indication to keep. BTW, your description alone hints that these keywords were just another short-living custom URI scheme, so if they should be mentioned at all, the current target is very wrong. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-I do remember when these keywords appeared in advertisements. That said, the AOL article doesn't say anything about them. There's no information there that is meaningful to someone searching for the keyword concept. If it was to be added (properly sourced and so forth) that might be another matter, but as it stands now it should be deleted.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Gurch suggests, this is nearly a notable enough topic in itself: sources exist which treat this subject as a main topic of analysis. In the absence of a standalone article on the subject, it helps build the web to have the term redirect to the most appropriate core article. If AOL doesn't include material on the topic then it should be improved. This is certainly not an "unlikely search term". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until/unless someone overwrites with historical content about this topic. The uncapitalized version of this redirect has been in the system since 2006 without creating confusion or controversy. As others have already noted, this used to be a very commonly understood and widely advertised concept. We encourage the inclusion of far more trivial content in Wikipedia. This, at least, is clearly sourcable. The fact that the current AOL article is incomplete is explicitly not grounds to delete a redirect. Most of our articles are still incomplete. Leaving room for improvement is part of the wiki way. (See, for example, item 9 of meta:The Perfect Stub Article.) Rossami (talk) 08:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gurch and Thumperward. This is a topic that should be covered in an article. - Eureka Lott 20:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep per Chris. mabdul 20:12, 24 February 2012 (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.

Ledi Qaqa[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, R3 by User:Fastily. Lenticel (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term JayJayTalk to me 22:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete R3. Misredirect typo. ApprenticeFan work 04:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Nothing in the history suggests that these redirects were created as typos. Nor are they "misdirected". They might have been speedy-deletable as vandalism (the creator's other contribution history suggests that to me), but the rationale given here is not a valid CSD criterion. Despite reaching the right outcome, it is important to get the documentation right. Rossami (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2012 (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.

Ledi Gaga[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, R3 by User:Fastily. Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term JayJayTalk to me 22:56, 12 February 2012 (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.

All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.[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. Lenticel (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unneccesary redirect as it is basically the same except the addition of a period JayJayTalk to me 22:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Helps to document a pagemove. Since the content was at this title for almost a year before being moved, it is possible that external links remain. It is not obviously harmful or confusing. Side comment: "Useless" is a personal value judgement and is explicitly not a listed reason to delete a redirect. Rossami (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term is quite plausible. Redirects are cheap, I see no problem with keeping this particular one. Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 19:41, 14 February 2012 (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.

QWERTY and accents[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 QWERTY#Diacritical marks and international variants. Ruslik_Zero 18:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Redirects to a nonexistant section. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:46, 12 February 2012 (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.

MNBVCXZLKJHGFDSAPOIUYTREWQ[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:46, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: seems to be a WP:POINT example. I can't imagine someone actually searching information about his keyboard layout by typing all letters right-to-left from bottom to top. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:07, 13 February 2012 (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.

Zxcvbnm,./[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:24, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:45, 12 February 2012 (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.

Mnbvcxz[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. Ruslik_Zero 18:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:45, 12 February 2012 (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.

File:The Salamander.jpg[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, R3 by User:Fastily. Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2012 (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.

File:0207L COPPOLA 15P.jpg[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, R3 by User:Fastily. Lenticel (talk) 00:25, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely unused ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:57, 12 February 2012 (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/2012_February_12&oldid=1136083391"