Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 18, 2012

Wikipedia:Saint pentecostal church[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 speedily deleted. The redirect was speedily deleted under criterion R3 (incorrectly as this explicitly excludes redirects created by moves), but it would have been subject to G6. The target was subsequently deleted so G8 would also have applied. Thryduulf (talk) 21:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uneeded redirect from project space The Interior (Talk) 19:57, 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.

IPad Mini[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 and watch, taking into account the three expansion attemost during this RfD. Tikiwont (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such things as an IPad Mini, there has been rumors about one but one hasn't ever surfaced. Therefore there shouldn't be a direct. Its like making a redirect from iPad Jumbo. JetBlast (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The coverage on the internet seems to suggest that we should have content about this, either about a product or about the notable rumours about one. Either that should be at a section of the iPad article (in which case this redirect should be kept) or as a standalone article overwriting the redirect. Neither requires deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next Apple hardware release is scheduled for October, so if you delete the redirect it will almost certainly come back as press speculation mounts about the launch of the rumoured smaller-sized iPad. Whether or not it is to be called the iPad Mini there are going to be those who create an article in that name, which will then inevitably be redirected to iPad ad-nauseum until the official announcement. Bottom line - deleting is pointless. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about a redirect to iPhone? Or would that just be silly? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until/unless an article is created or notable rumours (using this title) have made it into the target page. Siuenti (talk) 22:23, 29 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.

Shortwing (Asian thrushes)[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) 20:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now replaced with Shortwing (birds). Redirect does not have a use and may be confusing. Snowman (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article was at this title from 2003 until yesterday, and as such it will remain the target of incoming external links for a long time to come. Further, as the birds in question are members of the thrush family native to south-east Asia the former disambiguator is correct and not confusing. Deletion would be harmful for no benefit. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean except I doubt if the old dab page will be used much in the future. I would like to withdraw my nomination for discussion. Snowman (talk) 20:09, 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.

Femme flagging[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 deletion. - Vianello (Talk) 23:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article was deleted as non-notable. Using handkerchief code as a place to put the material does not solve that problem. Mangoe (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is consensus that the subject of femme flagging is not sufficiently sourced in reliable sources for inclusion anywhere in Wikipedia. Until such time as that consensus changes and content is added to an article (a reliably sourced 2-3 sentences should be sufficient as a minimum), we shouldn't have a redirect at this title. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article being redirected to makes no mention of this concept. And if it did? The content wouldn't survive, because the reasons it was removed in the first place persist, and we'd be at this same point again. (Minor update: Now on taking a quick look, I see that's precisely what happened) If reliable third party coverage can be found for this at a later point, it might warrant being included in the article now being redirected to, but only then. - Vianello (Talk) 17:38, 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.

Puduchepa[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 a mispellings. Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this article, because Puduchepa is a German name for queen Puduhepa, and not the English one. Miha (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my mistake - not Paduhepa, but Puduchepa with CH.--Miha (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Please delete Puduchepa.[reply]

  • Keep Puduchepa too, judging from a search of Google books it seems to be used in at least three or four English-language sources. Siuenti (talk) 20:59, 21 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_18&oldid=1080034746"