Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 October 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 6[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 6, 2013.

SAW[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 retarget to Saw (disambiguation). (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 00:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Originally pointed to saw (disambiguation), and was retargeted to saw a year ago by Neelix (talk · contribs). I think if a user is typing in the second and third letter in caps, they're more likely to be looking for an alternate meaning. For instance, I typed this in because I was trying to remember what the Muslim abbreviation stood for. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 23:40, 6 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.

Wikipedia:Michael Joseph Baum[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 deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

redirect created in a failed attempt to move from afc to main space. noq (talk) 23:39, 6 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.

National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (NISCHR)[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 16:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not required, this is not a method of writing this organisation name ever used in the real world and is the result of an editor's error in article creation. The organisation may be found by either its full name or the initials. Both are never used together. Fiddle Faddle 17:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was actually created at NISCHR. The redirect should still be kept as it is harmless, but I wanted to point something out. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! What happened was that the original editor created the article, as you rightly say, at NISCHR but then 4 minutes later he created a duplicate at National Institute for Social Care and Health Research (NISCHR)! So I think my plausibility argument is still valid. The Whispering Wind (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plausible? Possibly, but 100% pointless, not that we are short of disk space. NISCHR already redirects to the full named article. By the time one has typed in the full article name one is unlikely to add (NISCHR) to it (and get it right!) and one will have found the article anyway with the predictive thingy Fiddle Faddle 22:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but folks don't tend to type in long names they also copy'n'paste and this is a common name formulation eg here, here and many others. But none of this is pivotal because it is harmless. Once created, we only delete redirects if they are some way harmful per WP:RFD#DELETE. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per TWW. Not misleading, harmless, and a somewhat plausible search term anyway. No, it wouldn't do as a title, but it's fine as a redirect. --BDD (talk) 16:22, 14 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.

Sports Reference[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) 16:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sports Reference owns both Baseball-Reference.com and Pro-Football-Reference.com, so there is no one clear topic. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:23, 6 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.

Sports Reference LLC[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) 16:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sports Reference owns both Baseball-Reference.com and Pro-Football-Reference.com, so there is no one clear topic. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:19, 6 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.

R/trees[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) 16:25, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subreddit about marijuana. However, it is not a notable subreddit, and it isn't and won't mentioned at the target because there are no sources. While this was initially created as a standalone page, it would not survive an AfD and the redirect isn't likely, so I'm requesting deletion. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:16, 6 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.

MacCain[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 retarget to McCain. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 00:52, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain is not even the primary topic for McCain so why should be the primary topic for a mispelling? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 15:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The dab page is actually McCain so it would need to redirect there.--174.95.109.219 (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but no. We link to pages with (disambiguation) in the title in such cases - see WP:INTDABLINK. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? That'd be a double redirect. From INTDABLINK:

The rule about linking through a "(disambiguation)" redirect does not apply to redirects to disambiguation pages: do not create a double redirect, but make a redirect to the disambiguation page directly (thus Bill Cox, a redirect from an alternative name, redirects to the disambiguation page and does not go through the redirect William Cox (disambiguation)).

174.95 is correct. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 01:11, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! You are of course both right; I think I was having a bad hair day! Thank you for your patient explanation. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:41, 8 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.

Belinda Carlisle (song)[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 19:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page was moved to In Too Deep (Belinda Carlisle song) and later to its current status. I think it was created as "Belinda Carlisle (song)" as a mistake because there is no evidence this song is called or known by this name. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Belinda Carlisle discography#Singles as a potentially useful search term. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, implausible search term unless someone thinks there's a song called "Belinda Carlisle". Siuenti (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Siuenti. It's not unheard of for a song to share a name with its artist. They Might Be Giants have a self-titled song, and "Are You Jimmy Ray?" is close, but without evidence that Carlisle produced such a song, or that one of her other songs is commonly known as such, I really don't see this as a useful search term. --BDD (talk) 17:35, 8 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_6&oldid=1090409335"