Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 22[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 22, 2013

James Knowles (footballer)[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 18:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- not mentioned in target article as he's no longer at Blackburn[1]; I would suggest updating redirect but redirects such as this are unlikely to be stable as the mention in the article is only current, not permanent. The reason for protection, "Multiple AFD's, perhaps this may be notable in the future", no longer applies - actually it probably never did as the first two AFDs appear to be for a different footballer, born 1983 not 1993. Peter James (talk) 23:47, 22 January 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.

4815162342 (number)[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. Plausible search term, in line with WP formatting.] Nabla (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not mentioned in the target, and not likely to be typed correctly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as a redirect already existed at 4815162342, and it's unclear why this was created as a separate page, or redirected. It's possible that the number may be searched for without spaces, but it's unlikely that "(number)" would also be added, and the redirect may be misleading as it suggests that the number "4815162342" has significance, when it's only the combination of numbers that's mentioned in the target article. Peter James (talk) 00:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep If someone familiar with Wikipedia number articles is expecting a year article/redirect at the bare title, they may enter this instead. -- 01:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.128.43 (talk)
  • Keep appending "(number)" to a numerical string when looking for information about a number is always going to be a likely search term because of the convention for at least 1-4 digit numbers to be about years, e.g. 2000 is about a year, 2000 (number) is about the number. Thryduulf (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Move without redirect to 4815162342 (digits) or 4815162342 (digit sequence). Not a justification for a "Keep". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What benefit would that non-standard disambiguator bring over the current situation? Thryduulf (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It makes it clear that it is not a "number" in the sense of WP:NUMBER. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well the target already makes that clear, but it could be tagged with {{R from incorrect disambiguation}} to make it clearer. Tagging the redirect with the relevant Wikiprojects for Lost rather than the maths project would assist with that too. Redirects like this exist to help readers but "(digits)" wont do that. Thryduulf (talk) 14:37, 26 January 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.

Digi Sport[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 (non-admin closure). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect causing a loop as Digi TV links again to Digi Sport The Banner talk 13:14, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - no deletion nomination necessary, just remove the link from the target article. It would be nice to have a bot that does that, actually. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeep and delink. A list of self-redirects like this would be good, but whether the solution is delinking, retargetting the redirect or deletion to give a redlink needs human judgement. Thryduulf (talk) 12:48, 24 January 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.

''All My Babies' Mamas''[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 18:58, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DB-TEST speedy delete. Weird attempt at italicizing a title, by making up a title not used by the subject. The page move was reverted, leaving this redirect behind. 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment the redirect contains double single-quotes (') enclosing the title, they are not double-quotes (") -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Shawnty Lo for now. If something comes of the project, recreate page.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, I don't see an argument for deletion. WilyD 10:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - NOT a plausible search term, whether double-single-quotes or double-quotes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand how you can make such a ridiculous statement. It's transparently a plausible search term in a way that can't be reasonably disputed. Are you confusing "plausible" with "likely"? WilyD 17:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I have to agree with Rubin... it is difficult to see how this could be considered a plausible search term. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:25, 23 January 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.

Digi Sport 3[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 ([{WP:NAC Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is creating a loop as it is pointing to Digi TV, what links to Digi Sport 3 The Banner talk 01:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep why don't you just fix the problem by delinking it? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 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.

Digi Sport 2[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 (non-admin closure). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is creating a loop as it is pointing to Digi TV, what links to Digi Sport 2 The Banner talk 01:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep why don't you just fix the problem by delinking it? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 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.

Digi Sport 1[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 (non-admin closure). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect is creating a loop as it is pointing to Digi TV, what links to Digi Sport 1 The Banner talk 01:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep why don't you just fix the problem by delinking it? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 02:03, 22 January 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.

Mannam Volunteer Association[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. Wizardman 16:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that correlation must remove speedy. MANNAM is a volunteer association and Shinchonji is a religious organization. They are different organizations. Lightinme (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Like any other sponsors,Shinchonji supports MANNAM Volunteer Association.MANNAM is an independent organization from any others. I heard that there is contraversy over Shinchonji,but it's nothing to do with MANNAM.MANNAM and Shinchonji co-host several big events and just because that fact,it is hard to be considered that MANNAM is Shinchonji.Konzaburo (talk)
  • Delete. According to my understanding, MANNAM as a purely international society Volunteer Association, Representative NamHee Kim has made a lot of activities to strengthen exchanges, she is aimed at promoting the world peace. But MANNAM Jointly organized Sports Exhibition with Shinchonji[2], and some people say that MANNAM and Shinchonji is together or they are one, I feel too far-fetched. As for ManHee Lee is the honorary president of the MANNAM, it is not surprising. Because Shinchonji supports MANNAM, so this is quite normal, and he also advocated for World Peace. Simply because of Shinchonji, and says that MANNAM is belongs to religious groups. I am very puzzled about it. I just hope MANNAM as a Volunteer Association can better serve the community, and it dosen’t being attacked by someone, because of a religious group as Shinchonji.Joodongzhe (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep-These redirects were just kept by consensus less than a month ago: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 20#Mannam Volunteer Association. I'd also note that the nominator and both users advocating "delete" appear to be WP:SPAs, and may well be WP:SOCKs.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I re-uploaded this because there were opinions in similar proportion. At that time, outcome was same point, 2-2. So I think it will be needed to check again. User:Junganghansik made Mannam-Shinchonji redirections, but I noticed that Junganghansik also edited same categories lately. I don't think he is not WP:SPA. If I'm not a sock puppet, you will be responsible for the result. Lightinme (talk) 03:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't say that just because I'm a newcomer. If you think my opinion is wrong, you should give your reasons. Don't bite the newcomer. Konzaburo (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with the result of a deletion discussion, you should follow the procedures outlined at Wikipedia: Deletion review. Just creating a new nomination without going through that process is generally considered disruptive.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Deletion Review is for disputed deletions and speedy deletions, not for renomination. A previous request ended in a tie, 2 to 2 and there weren't enough comment to make a dicision. Consequently I renominated this and you doubted me, User:Konzaburo and User:joodongzhe as sock puppets. But Checkuser concluded that three users are different people. Would you please assume newcomers with good faith? I don't know why you are accusing me of bad faith. I think the others mimicked my spelling of MANNAM. I ask you to be polite to newcomers. Lightinme (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of deletion review is incorrect. You are saying that as it was a "tie". As the template you removed (and I have readded) explains, deletion discussions are not votes. The closer determined that the consensus was to keep. If you feel that was incorrect, you can ask that it be reviewed. You should not, however, just make a "do-over" nomination. That's just not the proper way to do things.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep Renominations after a "keep" consensus are disruptive. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to previous discussion, the person who redirect this document, insisted that they have same Chairman, but this is not true. As far as I know there is no Chairman in Mannam, Man-Hee Lee is just Honorary chairman. Actually Representative(Chairwoman) of Mannam is Nam Hee Kim. Even though it is true that he is working with Nam Hee Kim, but I couldn't find any evidence that Mannam is Shinchonji. Wglsa (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because Shinchonji and Mannam are entirely separate entities that operate on entirely separate mandates. Please refer to this article and official website of Shinchonji and Mannam. WinnieDany (talk) 13:58, 28 January 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_January_22&oldid=1141906360"