Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 4, 2014.

MapMaker (Editor)[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) 00:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect currently redirects to a nonexistent section on TimeSplitters. The subject of his redirect is not mentioned specifically by name anywhere in the article. (There is a reference for a "Level editor" in the article, but it is not named.) Lastly, the disambiguator in this redirect is very nonstandard and even somewhat confusing. Steel1943 (talk) 17:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. — Scott • talk 13:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is an article at Wikia, here. Do you think someone may have been confusing Wikipedia with Wikia? Si Trew (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2014 (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.

Inglaterra[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 (again). --BDD (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Spanish language is not especially related to this country. Gorobay (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - directs readers to the content they're looking for. No reason has been suggested for deletion. WilyD 16:36, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. EN.WP's database is not a translation tool. Readers looking for "Inglaterra" are looking for es:Inglaterra. — Scott • talk 18:41, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete: I agree with Scott. --Tito☸Dutta 22:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to List of European regions with alternative names where the term is mentioned.--Lenticel (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. This language has no particular affinity for England, that being a country with a Germanic-language origin, influenced by French not Spanish, with historic Celtic usage. WP:UE, England would be one of the most definite English-language topics. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The way I tend to judge these is to find comparisons. There is Angleterre (French) but that is a DAB page and probably shouldn't be because there are only two entries and the second is to Angleterre Hotel in St Petersburg, Russia which might be a bit WP:PROMO anyway, I don't know, but doesn't need a DAB. Royaume-Uni redirects to United Kingdom as it should (if you are going to have it direct anywhere).
Anglia, the Hungarian name for England, is a DAB. Egyesült Királyság, the Hungarian for United Kingdom, doesn't exist. Engels is an R to Freidrich Engels, the unknown member of the Marx Brothers, it doesn't go to the German word for "English". Hibernia has its own article but in the first sentence references Ireland; Caledonia similarly. Helvetica, which Switzerland has on its stamps, actually is an article for the typeface, but Helvetica (disambiguation) has the links. So on the whole i would say delete, but if it is a useful search term then I will change my mind. Si Trew (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2014 (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.

World's Largest Rosary[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. Involved closed given the backlog, and with unanimous consensus after over three weeks of listing. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing at the target page about having the world's largest rosary. Searching Google, it looks like it's in the Philippines somewhere. BDD (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - not mentioned at target. Regardless of where it is, it's likely to be worth redlinking to encourage creation anyhew. WilyD 10:13, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clueless redirect. --Tito☸Dutta 22:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage possible article creation. --Lenticel (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trew's Law of World Fame states that anything claiming to be world famous patently isn't. You don't have the World Famous Pyramids or the World Famous Eiffel Tower. Where I used to live there is the World Famous Comfort Café which is just a truck stop but I hope they were just being ironic. (I realise the redirect does not literally say world famous but Trew's Law of Fame still applies.) Si Trew (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2014 (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.

World's Largest Wind Chimes[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. Involved closed given the backlog, and with unanimous consensus after over three weeks of listing. --BDD (talk) 16:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing at the target page about having the world's largest wind chimes. We could retarget to World's Largest Tuned Musical Windchime, in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, but I'd favor deletion. Guinness now recognizes Casey, Illinois as holding this title, so the Arkansas attraction is probably misnamed anyway. BDD (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jax 0677 (talk) 07:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - presumably, a good case to redlink to encourage creation (of either the current record holder, or perhaps a history of trying to hold the record). WilyD 16:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete to encourage possible article creation. --Lenticel (talk) 02:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As above, this is Trew's Law of Fame. Anything claiming to be world famous patently isn't. Si Trew (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also please Delete the actual windchimes themselves. I hate them, and the thought of having large ones is just nauseating. Si Trew (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2014 (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.

Pinch point (engineering)[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 Pinch point as incomplete disambiguation. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wiktionary, "pinch point" is "A point in between moving and stationary parts of a machine" where something could get pinched. Near as I can tell from Pinch analysis, pinch point refers to a point on a curve in such analyses. It's not at all clear to me that the disambiguator (engineering) more properly refers to that latter than to the former. Note that "Pinch point (engineering)" appears at Pinch point (disambiguation), but until a few minutes ago there was no description or definition. Cnilep (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pinch points at least in my dialect of UK English are bottlenecks. I am not sure this helps general readers and I don't see the need for this it could be perfectly covered at the DAB. To declare an interest, I am a chartered electrical and software engineer. Si Trew (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think also "Pinch point" is used to refer in road engineering, at least in the UK, to when they deliberately narrow an urban or suburban road so as to slow the traffic. That should be at the DAB too if we can find a target for it. Sleeping policeman is not quite right. But there is no need for two separate DABs or redirects for this. Si Trew (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Would traffic calming be a suitable target? Bottlenecks do need to be mentioned on the dab page, but I'm failing to come up with a good form of words to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Curb extension appears to be the traffic "pinch point", isn't it? Cnilep (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2014 (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.

Articles for deletion[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, and salt as repeatedly recreated. --BDD (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not useful unless you redirect it to project space TheChampionMan1234 02:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete censorship in the real world exists, where articles are deleted from journalistic publications, so thinking this should be about Wikipedia involves too much navel gazing. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm also loving the irony.--Lenticel (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. This redirect has been created and argued over and deleted over and over again. (AfD, 2006; RfD, 2012.) Far too much time has been wasted on this over the years and it's time to put a lid on it. — Scott • talk 10:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Misleading and unnecessary. --Tito☸Dutta 22:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per Scott inter alia. Si Trew (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and add a {{selfref}}erential hatnote at the target. This will make it very useful for people, especially new editors, who are trying to find articles for deletion without knowing about namespaces. This is a very likely search term for people who have heard of our process but don't know much (or anything) about it. Thryduulf (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. Providing it is doing no harm, anything that encourages readers to become editors is a good thing. Si Trew (talk) 11:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Confusing redirect for several reasons, one being the existence of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. As an article, what would this be? An article regarding a list of articles that are going to be deleted from existence, like throwing them in a fire or something? Are all of the publishing companies going to start acquiring all of their issues of their publications and lay them to waste??? Anyways, enough of this rant: please throw nine hundred tons of NaCl on this title, partially for the same reasons why New article is salted. Thank you all, and happy holidays. Steel1943 (talk) 01:03, 11 April 2014 (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.

Andrew Crescenzi[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) 00:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He is now a prospect of the Los Angeles Kings and is not notable for simply signing with the Leafs in 2010-11. Instead of moving the redirect to the 2013-14 Los Angeles Kings season page, this would be better served as a redlink. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Better served by a red link. Current target isn't where people would expect to go and neither likely is the season page of the new team that owns his rights. -DJSasso (talk) 17:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and DJSasso. He is not currently WP:NHOCKEY (notability of ice hockey players) – but I don't live that side of the pond and if he is covered in RS and so on perhaps he is notable, it is not a sport played this side of the pond much. Si Trew (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2014 (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/2014_April_4&oldid=1050184486"