Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 7, 2013.

I Think, They Call Him John[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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficiently implausible redirect, I believe. Do others agree? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not in the slightest. A minor punctuation difference. Keep. Ego White Tray (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Right, this is minor punctuation difference. So minor, in fact, that someone doesn't need the comma as part of the search in order to correctly find the article. In addition, with the creation of this redirect, we now promote the "incorrectness" of the film's title.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  17:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, here goes. One, the search box is not the only way people find articles. Some people get here by clicking links, and we have no possible way to know what links there. Dead links are never the fought of the person who linked and always the fault of where it links too, so do we want to kill someone's link over a little comma? Also, the existence of a redirect is in no way an endorsement of its name or its spelling. If anyone (else) seriously thought that, we wouldn't have redirects like Climategate (a serious POV violation). Ego White Tray (talk) 04:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should be clear that the redirect was created only when I moved the article to its correct title. I don't know why the article creator believed the film name had this strangely placed comma: it doesn't appear in any of the references or external links he had added. Perhaps he just remembered it that way. At any rate, it seemed to me to be a misspelling of the title that is not commonly used, particular to this one editor. So I felt it satisfied criterion 8 at WP:RFD#DELETE. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plausible search term/typo/whatnot, and no argument has been presented for deletion. WilyD 14:32, 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.

Infobox magazine[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) 06:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CNR, not useful at all. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 13:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Cross-namespace redirect to the template namespace from the article namespace that serves no purpose, especially considering that the redirect has no transclusions. In fact, I have yet to figure out how to transclude pages from the article namespace, or even if it's possible, which goes to show how unhelpful this redirect is. Steel1943 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as CNR. --Lenticel (talk) 01:50, 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.

Australasian Wrestling Federation[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. Thryduulf (talk) 13:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-submitted after I stuffed up the previous nomination. This redirect amounts to advertising/spam. The original article was deleted via AfD and there is no consensus for a re-direct. I do not believe traffic justifies the re-direction and is against the consensus established by the AfD. 124.181.211.180 (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - given that the article was deleted at AfD, there's no sense in redlinking to encourage article creation. Given the Australasian Wrestling Federation is discussed at the target article, it seems the most sensible place to send readers looking for information on the topic. WilyD 14:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD. We're more accustomed to seeing non-notable people being redirected to a notable organization, but this is fine too. --BDD (talk) 06:42, 14 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_7&oldid=1138578839"