Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 10, 2013.

List of Formula One constuctor records[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 18#List of Formula One constuctor records

Two-letter combinations[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 Two-letter combinations, Two-letter combination and Two letter combination; retarget remainder to Acronym. WJBscribe (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

XNRs into Wikipedia-space, all of these have low pageview stats. In particular, they formed as a result of this move from article-space into Wikipedia-space, which was summarily deleted and orphaned (but these accompanying redirects were 'fixed' by a few bots instead.) TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all unless someone can find a better target. I looked around but couldn't find one. That said, considering country codes, US States, etc, you could probably make an article of this concept. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I brought it to Redirects for Discussion was because I saw no alternative article to point these to. (That being said, an article or LIST of some sort describing this would probably be a good topic to start writing on.) If anyone else finds an appropriate list in mainspace to point these to I'd be happy to close this in favor of retargeting. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 02:47, 11 December 2013 (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.

Freopedia project[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, nominator withdrawal. Following WJScribe's procedural closure of the RFD below and Evad37's turning the redirect into a fullblown article, I think this ought to be closed early as well. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 12:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some of the same reasons as below. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: For some of the same reasons as below. — me too. Tito☸Dutta 23:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See below - Whpq (talk) 00:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Freopedia, assuming that it is turned into an article per my comment below - Evad37 [talk] 05:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC) which has been turned into an article. - Evad37 [talk] 07:37, 12 December 2013 (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.

Freopedia[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 article created - procedural close as page is no longer a redirect. WJBscribe (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect that was created as recently as May 14, 2013. Pageviews have indicated little use since then.

There's also the problem that this (ostensibly) non-notable event has been "elevated" to article status for potential readers looking for this term. In addition, should this project gain traction and receive coverage enough to attain notability, new users who wish to comment and/or write an article about it (without having had direct interaction with Wikipedia infrastructure) would be more likely to be confused and edit the Wikipedia: namespace page about the project than the actual article page that is being redirected. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as cross-namespace. If it's notable, write an article, if it's not, it shouldn't be in article space. 90.208.168.109 (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep its a gateway to a project and is being used... the project is notable its had and continues to have media(radio) coverage. Gnangarra 22:05, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a cross-namespace redirect. If as claimed, that project is notable, then move it to article space where it belongs. -- Whpq (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unacceptable cross namespace. a) Someone will search in web to read an article and will be redirected to a project page. b) For mainspace articles the notability etc criteria are applicable, when the mainspace article is redirecting to project space, those criteria are applicable there too. --Tito☸Dutta 23:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replace cross-namespace redirect with stub article I just wrote, currently in my sandbox - Evad37 [talk] 05:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done, per WP:BOLD and WP:IAR. Any concerns with the article can be taken up on its talk page, or AfD etc. - Evad37 [talk] 07:36, 12 December 2013 (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.

Sea-form green[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 Spring green. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely search term.TheLongTone (talk) 16:47, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Spring green which is also called seafoam green.--Lenticel (talk) 01:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find no evidence that the expression exists. As for the suggested redirect, even if it is a typo for "Seafoam green" (for which I can see no evidence) it is not a sufficiently likely typo to warrant a redirect. (In fact, if that is the correct explanation, then the redirect qualifies for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#R3.) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Spring green. No WP:RFD#DELETE grounds for deletion. The number of hits here shows that it is an entirely plausible search term. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - makes sense, as sea form green is discussed there. WilyD 14:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • RetargetSea--foam green had not ocurred to me as something this could by a typo for. Mind you, I think most colour names that don't refer to a specific pigments are asinine.TheLongTone (talk) 15:07, 12 December 2013 (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/2013_December_10&oldid=1090409456"