Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 13[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 13, 2012

Donald L Lunsford[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 for the noted difference between recently created and recently moved.. Tikiwont (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect with erroneous middle initial left over from recently-performed page move. TJRC (talk) 21:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article was at this wrong title for over 2 years, so there may well be external links. I don't see the point of deleting this. Interplanet Janet, Esquire IANAL 21:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no reason to keep redirects that are a mis-spell incident. Often the request is made at the time of the redirect and they are deleted without discussion. Stormbay (talk) 21:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Interplanet Janet. Redirects from plausible misspellings and misnomers are frequently useful. Even more so, redirects from an old title are routinely kept to avoid breaking incoming links from external websites, bookmarks, etc. Both apply in this case and there would be no benefit in deletion so the correct course of action is obvious. Thryduulf (talk) 21:37, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - may be externally linked, not problematic. WilyD 08:30, 18 September 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.

ßastard[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 A possibly deliberate spelling variant meaningful to some but there is sufficient feeling to not have it hard-coded here. Tikiwont (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? ibicdlcod (talk) 10:47, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • weak keep I've added ßitch created at the same time by the same user to the nomination. Looking at their contribution history, I don't think we can say for sure whether this was vandalism or not, so it's best to assume good faith and treat it as if it wasn't. The redirects do get a small trickle of hits, and the use of the eszett for "B" is not exactly uncommon online (c.f. Sensational spelling, Heavy metal umlaut, Faux Cyrillic, Leet, etc), and with no standout single usage the generic word is the best target for them if they exist. I wouldn't go around encouraging their creation, but as we have them I don't see they're doing any harm to keep. Thryduulf (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's a non-ASCII/non-English redirect to an English word. Unlike 1337-speak, it can't be typed on a standard English keyboard either. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 22:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • They can easily be typed on any keyboard set up with dead keys (standard in many Linux distros and probably other setups to), by use of windows alt codes, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague redirect, misspelling would be stretching it.--Lenticel (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I highly doubt anyone would replace B for ß. ZappaOMati 04:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The evidence from all over the web makes it abundantly clear that people do. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This type of thing really shouldn't require discussion. Stormbay (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What speedy deletion criteria do you suggest should apply then? Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep, given its frequent appearance on the web, it's likely that some people, possibly children or non-native speakers, will come across it and not realise what it is supposed to mean. Siuenti (talk) 19:23, 18 September 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.

IPhone 6[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. Tikiwont (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not real, doesn't need a place TheChampionMan1234 01:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well iPhone could refer to the sixth generation iPhone, the iPhone 5, or it could refer to a future product. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It seems likely that someone finds this useful, given the paltry but consistent traffic through the link. I imagine someone typing it into the search window to check if the product exists. Linking to the IPhone article makes sense; of course this would become an article if a product bearing this name became notable at some point in the future. In any case, I do not see any reasons at WP:R#DELETE that apply. VQuakr (talk) 02:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Although I believe this is a plausible redirect, we might be bordering on WP:CRYSTAL here--Lenticel (talk) 02:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - As User:Marcus Qwertyus stated, someone could be looking for the sixth-generation iPhone, also known the iPhone 5, but otherwise, WP:CBALL could be slowly applying. ZappaOMati 04:15, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, sort of per VQuakr. I agree that people searching for it are most likely wondering whether it exists, and not having an article seems to me to be a marginally better way of answering that than pointing them to a broader topic (which they'll have to skim through to find an answer and may still leave unsure). This also applies to IPhone 7 and Iphone 8, can we add those to the nomination? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible typo, at a minimum, users mistakenly thinking there's an iPhone 6 would be better served by a redirect than a redlink, nothing in the nominating statement provides a motivation for deletion. WilyD 08:31, 18 September 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_September_13&oldid=1142587499"