Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 3[edit]

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

Spam redirects to Măeriște resubmitted[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn. No prejudice against unbundled nominations (similar groupings, such as the first four, may still be listed together). --BDD (talk) 16:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to clean up some spam in the form of 200+ redirects to a single article Măeriște. I suspect the original author was unhappy about the original article being deleted. As a result, the article for this town Măeriște now has redirects from a multitude of people names, geographic names, newspapers, museums, ethicities, religions, etc.

I recommend speedy delete due to G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

The following redirects should be deleted. These are not appropriate synonyms for the article on Măeriște commune, nor its constituent villages. In most cases these are people, streets, sights, institutions, and others lacking notoriety.

  • Delete all except the entry I retargeted, since none of these have an reason to redirect to the town. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – All. I go to the very first one, find it mentioned in the article in the History section and see nothing to indicate that it is a spam link. If the nom wants some of these deleted, then there is a need to withdraw, start over and rethink this proposal. The first redirect hasn't even been tagged and disengaged, so I assume none of them have. If this is not withdrawn and restructured, then it might sit here on this page awaiting disposition for quite a while. – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX! 09:12, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all-First off, WP:G11 doesn't even come close to applying, so let's just take speedy deletion off the table. Secondly, none of these redirects have been tagged for deletion, which is a significant procedural problem. Some of these appear invalid, but at least a few are mentioned in the target article. As it is, this list is simply too large and too broad to deal with.--Fyre2387 (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw. It is indeed a procedural nightmare to delete one by one, seeing that a particular user has created over 200 redirects here.Hollomis (talk) 20:08, 9 October 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.

Spam redirects to Măeriște[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 close. Please renominate and specify which redirects to delete. Non admin closure. Ego White Tray (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking to clean up some spam in the form of 200+ redirects to a single article Măeriște. I suspect the original author was unhappy about the original article being deleted. As a result, the article for this town Măeriște now has redirects from a multitude of people names, geographic names, newspapers, museums, ethicities, religions, etc.

I recommend speedy delete due to G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion.

Targets are all the present redirects to this article except the following:

  • Criștelec
  • Doh, Sălaj
  • Giurtelecu Șimleului
  • Kerestelek
  • Krasznahídvég
  • Maladia
  • Maladé
  • Măerişte
  • Somlyógyőrtelek
  • Somlyóújlak
  • Uileacu Şimleului
  • Wüst Görgen

Thanks, Hollomis (talk) 03:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close - we simply can't deal with this nomination in this form. Many of the redirects result from the Sălaj County, Romania template and of the ones listed in the nomination several are legitimate as constituent villages of this place. The nominator needs to identify the redirects that are, for example, misleading or otherwise harmful and then list them, with more specific rationales in the form specified at WP:RFD#HOWTO for multiple nominations. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:58, 3 October 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_October_3&oldid=1047709779"