Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 4, 2013

Flushing-Main Street (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 WP:SNOW keep. I'm willing to revert this upon request given how early this close is, but it seems a solid case of SNOW: there's no chance of this being deleted, so there's no need to run it through the whole process. --BDD (talk) 04:31, 7 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) 16:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for the same reasons mentioned in the two similar RFD's which so for have had no one support this position.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 16:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very plausible search term for someone who doesn't know what line the station is on, as evidenced by at least 15 hits each month for the past several months. Additionally there is a very high likelihood of incomming external links as the content has been accessible via this title since 2004 (and was the initial location of the content until it became a redirect in 2005). Thryduulf (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikipedia is not the sum whole of the entire world. The redirect is more likely to be typed than the article name -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 01:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Redirects like these specifically exist to aid readers who don't know our naming conventions.oknazevad (talk) 04:18, 5 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) 14:01, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not everyone is a native New Yorker and knows the local nomenclature. Very plausible redirect. Nate • (chatter) 03:05, 7 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:Richard Cooper (academic)[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 speedy delete. Redirects created when fixing page moves to the wrong namespace are covered under criterion G6 ("pages created in the wrong namespace"). Thryduulf (talk) 22:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request deletion of this cross namespace redirect which I accidentally created in a botched (and now otherwise fully fixed) move from user space to main space - sorry! Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:42, 4 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.

Trigger tha Gambler[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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading redirects. Trigger tha Gambler is the brother of Smoothe da Hustler, but a redirect somewhat suggests that they are the same person (until you read the later paragraph). He probably doesn't meet the notability requirement for an own article, so the redirects should just go. Don Cuan (talk) 10:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's common practice to redirect nonnotable people to their notable relatives. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It is common practice where it makes sense. Usually the target article would have a Personal Life section that the redirect points to. In this case, the brother is only mentioned passingly. The redirect is also confusing because it looks like "Trigger tha Gambler" would be an older performance name of "Smoothe da Hustler", until that passing mention. The redirect does more harm than good. Don Cuan (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep unless someone creates an article for Trigger tha Gambler or for "Broken Language", since both might be notable and the latter would be a better target than the current one. I agree with the nominator that the present situation is misleading, but it might be easily fixed by creating a "personal life" section and retargetting to that. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Don Cuan is absloutely right, both in his nomination and response to Nyttend. Further, it meets the criteria at WP:R#DELETE #10.  Senator2029 ➔ “Talk”  14:12, 10 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.

1st IIFA Awards[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 no consensus. DarthBotto talk•cont 11:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why will we need this redirect? Should we create one for 2nd, 3rd etc.? Anshuk (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag per Ego White Tray. WP:R#DELETE #10 might apply since the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, but the target seems to contain more than the "virtually no information" required by that criterion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:12, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2013_July_4&oldid=1138578956"