Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 3, 2013

Bowling Green (New York Subway)[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. --BDD (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. New York City Subway station articles are supposed to go by line name, not by system name (which is not even correct) per convention. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 20:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Our readers don't know what articles are "supposed to go by". They only know enough to look on Wikipedia. This redirect does what exactly what redirects are supposed to do: help people look for things on Wikipedia. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not the sum whole of the entire world. The redirect is more likely to be entered than the article name -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects are not subject to the naming conventions of articles. In fact, they are explicitly encouraged as alternative navigational aids for readers who do not know (and don't want to know) the vagaries of our conventions. Rossami (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. Redirects like these specifically exist to aid readers who don't know our naming conventions.oknazevad (talk) 04:16, 5 July 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.

Astor Place (New York Subway)[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. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect. New York City Subway station articles are supposed to go by line name, not by system name (which is not even correct) per convention. Epicgenius(talk to me • see my contributions) 20:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Our readers don't know what articles are "supposed to go by". They only know enough to look on Wikipedia. This redirect does what exactly what redirects are supposed to do: help people look for things on Wikipedia. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not the sum whole of the entire world. The redirect is more likely to be entered than the actual article name -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for same reasoning as above. Rossami (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rossami. Redirects like these specifically exist to aid readers who don't know our naming conventions.oknazevad (talk) 04:16, 5 July 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.

Wikipedia:A cold cup of coke and calm down[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. --BDD (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This nonstandard redirect was mangled due to vandalism of the target and sat that way for over two months, evidence that it's not being used. Since it's not clear that this adds anything to the target article, and it's not linked anywhere, it's reasonable to delete it in order to prevent a recurrence. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 15:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep have you any idea how many redirects don't get fixed when someone messes with articles and redirects things? You could delete most redirects with your rationale, since many articles have many variant spellings or names that don't get fixed when the main article is. Frankly the double-redirect bots should leave a message at their old targets when the fix a double redirect, so that when we manually clean things up we can find these redirects -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because no valid reason to delete the redirect has yet been presented. Rossami (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep might actually be useful for our non-tea drinking editors and users.--Lenticel (talk) 14:39, 11 July 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.

318ti[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. --BDD (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid redirect. "318ti" is very vague, and could potentially refer to things other than this car. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 09:42, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The redirect has existed without controversy or confusion since 2004. I suppose it is theoretically possible that "318ti" refers to other things than this car but Google, at least, disagrees - the first 10 pages of hit results are all in the context of that car. But even if there were a notable other use, that would at best be an argument to overwrite the redirect with disambiguation content, not to delete a potentially useful redirect. Rossami (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 318ti appears to primarily refer to the BMW. What other articles could be the target of this redirect? -- Whpq (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that this RFD is unnecessary since as mentioned even if there were other usages for this term creating a dab page would be the more logical idea. That also does not require an RFD to do so.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 16:59, 3 July 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_July_3&oldid=1089911450"