Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 26[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 26, 2013

Thug U[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) 16:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, barely any reliable secondary sources indicating the nickname of the football team. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete several different universities share this nickname -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There may be something to that since 15 minute before the RFD it redirected to Miami Hurricanes football. Also, before anyone asks that article did not mention the term either.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedily as long-overlooked vandalism. This is a somewhat common pejorative with no special connection to any one university (and not nearly notable enough even for a dictionary definition, much less an encyclopedia article). Rossami (talk) 00:21, 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.

Template:UR[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 to delete. No decision on whether an overwrite might eventually be necessary but the evidence presented here does not suggest that it's needed yet. Rossami (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UR has a myriad of meanings. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom , not UR -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there's something to overwrite it with. As a former title of this template, we shouldn't be in a hurry to delete. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sceptical of nominations which say "this could mean other things" but don't name any of those other things; in this case there evidently are other things called UR but in the absence of any immediately obvious ones which might require templates I don't see why this should be deleted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, one of them could be Template:University of Richmond, although I still believe the page history means we should just let this one be. Template titles are invisible to readers anyway; it's very easy to spend more time worrying about them than it's worth. --BDD (talk) 04:29, 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.

Sparkasse Hagen[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 stubify. Please contact me if you have concerns about this close, but it's a generally accepted principle that anyone can end an RfD by converting a redirect to a stub (within reason). --BDD (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please delete the redirect. it is a left-over of a move from the original title Long Oskar to Sparkasse Hagen, which was again moved to Sparkasse Hagen tower. nomination per BDD's statement. – more detailed explanation: the article is about one special building of a company (a german bank). The bank is called Sparkasse Hagen, see de:Sparkasse Hagen. The bank owns several buildings. So keeping the redirect is – in principle – like having an article about Berlin (the smaller, more "local" topic), but no article about Germany (the bigger, broader topic), and then redirecting Germany to Berlin. Holger1959 (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but not necessarily as-is. The content existed at this title from 10 July 2012 until it was moved (again) on 24 June of this year. While there is a slight potential for confusion, there is a greater potential that we will be breaking inbound links either in the project's history or from external sources. Link rot is an evil that we should avoid whenever possible. That said, the best answer (if anyone has time and sources) would be to overwrite the redirect with content about the bank, noting in passing that they put their name on a building. (Regrettably, my German is no longer up to the task of translation.) Rossami (talk) 00:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • what do you mean with "noting in passing that they put their name on a building"? I don't think it makes sense, this was not the only Sparkasse Hagen building. Every of their buildings/branches has a "Sparkasse Hagen" label and is called so, see the list of all Sparkasse Hagen buildings/branches. Holger1959 (talk) 16:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, that comment came out more cryptically than I'd intended. All I meant was to include a comment (and hyperlink) about this particular building in the broader article about the company. Rossami (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rossami makes a good point. I'll try to attempt a translation, or at least the creation of an English-language stub. That should satisfy everyone. Holger, perhaps you can lend a hand? Mein deutsch ist nicht so gut. --BDD (talk) 16:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. If for example the much bigger de:Erste Bank (one of the 3 biggest savings bank in Austria) is not notable enough [1] for english Wikipedia, then i assume, Sparkasse Hagen is also not. Please keep in mind that it is only one of hundreds "independent" savings banks (de:Sparkasse) of Germany, see de:Liste der Sparkassen in Deutschland. Rated by assets it is not even part of the top 100 largest german savings banks. And as a "master topic" english Wikipedia has only german public bank with a rather broad and confusing mix of savings bank content, so a new article will have many red links. Here the possibilities in my view:
1. leave the redirect unchanged – bad option, misleading, see above and [2]
2. replace the redirect with a article about the bank – possible, but unsure if it will be accepted, and someone has to work on it (i am not really keen on)
3. replace the redirect with a disambiguation page – possible, but a less-than-ideal solution because there is no general article about German "Sparkasse", only the broader german public bank and savings bank
4. delete the redirect – ok, because the article about the tower always was an orphan, and link rot should not be a problem, because Wikipedia shows logs to visitors, see for example Talk:Berlin (album)
Holger1959 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write a stub for the bank. Google News hits appear to strongly suggest it's notable. Failing that, though, I think keeping the redirect is preferable to deletion per Rossami. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:01, 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.

Mica Kings[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) 06:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chhattu Ram Horil Ram Private Limited to which the page redirects has - the company has no connection with name Mica Kings - the article was previously named Mica Kings and after a discussions at WT:INB to the point of deletion - was later moved but redirect remains - which I think should not be and as such deleted. In fact - The redirect constitutes self-promotion and Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply. Jethwarp (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the original article claimed they were so important in its industry it was the colloquial name--without trying to judge that, I moved it to a more neutral title. The question is whether the redirect is needed to preserve the chain of attribution. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mica Kings was never a colloquial name of CH Pvt Ltd or for that case even any other particular company - Mica Kings to be used as name of company may amount to as WP:HOAX - pl. see my comments at Talk:Chhattu_Ram_Horil_Ram_Private_Limited#Reference_-_interpretation and at User_talk:DGG#Mica_Kings_listed_at_Redirects_for_discussion. Thanx. Jethwarp (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the source given above, I agree it never was a specific name, and is therefore not a suitable redirect. DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 26 June 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.

Chris Butcher[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) 06:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a company page that makes no mention of this name. noq (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The target doesn't mention the name and doesn't seem to have done at the time the redirect was created. Possibly a typo? There's also a Chris Butcher listed at List of England national rugby union players, so a redlink makes sense per WP:R#DELETE #10 and WP:NRU. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 09:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must've forgotten to identify the panelists in the photo in the UDON article when I first placed it there (I had over 480 photos to upload from that convention, so it must've slipped past me). I've fixed the caption so that Chris Butcher is now identified in the photo. Whether this justified keeping the redirect or changing to a red link, I'll leave to a consensus here. Nightscream (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with User:Arms - since target doesn't mention the name Chirst Butcher - so I vote for delete. Jethwarp (talk) 13:20, 26 June 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_June_26&oldid=1039432968"