Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 7[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 7, 2014.

Marina Keegan[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) 16:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of the person at the target page  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Ronhjones and WP:N. I presume, though I can't find it, there was information there that has been removed: The R is actually an {{R to section}} to section "Marina Keegan Tragedy"; but not tagged as such, and there is no such section, a quick Google search for "Marina Keegan Tragedy" shows that she was a graduate who died in a car crash a few days after graduating from Yale University (e.g. here at the Huffington Post). That does not make her notable, people die in car crashes every day unfortunately, and there is no other indication of notability.
According to that article she wrote for the college magazine, was once mentioned on US National Public Radio and acted in some am-dram. So what, I have been on BBC radio half a dozen times, in a school quiz show and on a consumer phone-in show,, I apppeared briefly on Swedish television, built the sets for an amateur production of Pirates of Penzance when at University and did front of house, and edited a parish magazine for five years. I have been on the front page of the Cambridge News after a car accident (nobody was hurt). But I am not notable because those are just normal things people do. We don't have an article for every member of the Cambridge Footlights, for example, or everyone who plays the violin. She is not notable. Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness, Cambridge has a dearth of news and the Cambridge News is always hard pressed for stories, lest they merely reprint "Guided busway a disaster" madlibs, which ain't as true of the Huffington Post. But, since she's not mentioned in the article, there's no sense in a redirect. If it's not notable, sending readers there does them no service. If it is notable, it probably should have it's own article, since it's way too detailed for this as a parent. So that's moot. WilyD 12:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I swear they keep "Lorry crash on A14" permanently set up in type, especially for Fridays. I used to drink with a photographer, cub reporter, of the Cambridge News some years ago and you can tell that what stories they put in are wherever the photographer can get to. Ideally you want the crash to be right by an overbridge. Si Trew (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seek and ye shall find. I am not very good at looking up histories etc; I try but always fail. Thanks for that. Si Trew (talk) 08:34, 9 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.

Foxy Knoxy[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. --BDD (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Derogatory redirect to a living person's biography. Especially egregious, as it is this redirect, not the Knox article itself, that shows up in Yahoo's search results for Knox's name. Powers T 21:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Unfortunately, various parts of the British media have used this name for her on a regular basis. That information was in the article at some point, but it appears to have been removed. Example sources: Bell, Dan (23 November 2010). "Who is the real 'Foxy Knoxy'?". BBC News. Retrieved 7 April 2014.; Hattenstone, Simon (8 February 2014). "Who is Amanda Knox?". The Guardian. Retrieved 7 April 2014.. — Scott • talk 22:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Scott. WP:RNEUTRAL applies here, as this term has been very widely used to refer to Amanda Knox and so it is a likely search term. I can't remember if we have a way of explicitly marking redirects as non-neutral, but if we do then that should be done on this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of such a tagging, but {{R unprintworthy}} is always an option. --BDD (talk) 23:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the term is well established, even if used pejoratively. As the second-to-last sentence of WP:RNEUTRAL states: "... if a redirect represents an established term that is used in multiple mainstream reliable sources, it should be kept even if non-neutral, as it will facilitate searches on such terms". SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 03:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. I am not sure "Foxy" is used pejoratively even, it usually means kinda "sexy" and is used fondly, at least in British English. Wiktionary lists it at sense 2 as "attractive, sexy". Si Trew (talk) 07:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or cite. If the term is widely used, please cite it in the article; otherwise, delete the redirect per WP:V. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If most people can't remember her first name, it makes sense to redirect from the commonly used designation. Valetude (talk) 14:16, 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.

Blood (Anthrax 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 keep. JohnCD (talk) 21:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a well-known song (90 visits in the last 90 days→1 visit on a daily basis); it was not released as a single, does not have a video, is not performed live, or in other words, it has not received any media coverage. Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Redirects don't need to meet notability standards. "Blood (Anthrax song)" is only going to refer to a specific song released from published on that album. See WP:NSONG, which says "Songs that do not rise to notability for an independent article should redirect to another relevant article, such as for the songwriter, a prominent album or for the artist who prominently performed the song." --BDD (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the song was not released in any format (single, digital download, etc.) nor it has been performed by the artist. That's why I seek deletion in the first place.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But what does that matter? It means it shouldn't have its own article, but that's all. --BDD (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your argument was that the song was released from the album→it was not. Neither did the artist "prominently performed the song". Plus, one visit a day shows that the redirect is not needed at all.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, poor choice of words on my part. I've struck that and replaced it with better wording. --BDD (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to BDD's rationale, "not needed" is a subjective criterion and not one that is a valid reason to delete a redirect. What matters is that it is plausible, leads to the most relevant target and doesn't mislead - and it meets all three of those requirements with ease. One visit a day also shows that the redirect is being used - bots and the like are typically responsible for a single-digit number of visits each month. Thryduulf (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per BDD and Thryduulf. older ≠ wiser 00:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there seems to be no ambiguity about whether this is directing readers to what they're looking for, and it seems unlikely that redlinking to encourage creation is a good idea. WilyD 09:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is an accurate redirect. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:28, 12 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.

Template:WP44[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 deleted at sole author's request, made below. — Scott • talk 19:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Novelty shortcut created in 2010 and unused since. Unlikely to see use, and if it did it would be opaque to anybody that doesn't know that Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. It's also too vague a name; there are a lot of things that 44 could refer to. Recommend deleting. — Scott • talk 17:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • G7 as a nominator myself. JJ98 (Talk) 19:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll close this as a speedy deletion then. — Scott • talk 19:43, 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.

Commonism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 18#Commonism

Template:WTF[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. JohnCD (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 29#Template:Wtf? The same arguments apply, namely that this is vague and uncivil (and confusing, given that it points somewhere different than the deleted {{wtf?}}). BDD (talk) 16:50, 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.

Wikipedia:東亞[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 deleted at sole author's request, made below. — Scott • talk 19:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Novelty redirects created in 2010 (see this discussion) and, unsurprisingly, never used since. The vast majority of English Wikipedia editors don't speak Chinese, and they should never have to expect encountering a Chinese-language link to an English-language project resource. Both should be deleted. — Scott • talk 16:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • As creator of these two, delete. These redirects serve no useful purpose if they're unused. --benlisquareT•C•E 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'll close this as a speedy deletion then. — Scott • talk 19:41, 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.
  • Comment it should be noted that "Han" characters are used in Japanese as well (Kanji), and were used in Vietnamese (Hantu), and sometimes used in Korean (Hangul), the zone of coverage of this WikiProject, so it did make some sense that they were created, as the former lingua franca of the area was written Han. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zloty (Tintin)[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. No objections after a full listing period. Let's put this to rest. Contact me with concerns. --BDD (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previously listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 1#Zloty (Tintin), this redirect isn't mentioned at the target page. This second listing feels a bit bureaucratic, but it wasn't my choice. BDD (talk) 16:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's also a problem with hatnoting here. zloty redirects to Polish zloty, which is hatnoted to say that zloti redirects there but not to say that zloty does, and does not hatnote to Zloty (Tintin) or its target List of the Adventures of Tintin characters. I don't see the need for a DAB but once consensus is reached we should tie up the hatnoting at Polish zloty.
Or for that matter move it over to Zloty, I don't see why we have to say Polish. But perhaps that is just a policy, but we have Pound sterling as the article title rather than British pound sterling and Irish punt redirects to Irish pound, schilling redirects to Austrian schilling(why not use the shorter title?), shilling is an article for the old British coin with a DAB at shilling (disambiguation) and deutschemark redirects to Deutsche Mark and calling it the German Deutche Mark would be a bit redundant. Of course these things tend to be vestiges of editing history. WP:CURRENCY (in the MOS) has little to say on the matter of titles for currency/numismatic articles but just how to write them in the article itself. Kronor redirects to the DAB Krona. Guilder has an article about various historic coins but to find the old Netherlands currency, again it is not hatnoted from there, needs to be searched with Dutch guilder (although it is referenced from Florin. Taking Occam's Razor I am not going to needlessly multiply examples but there is a lot of inconsistency here. Si Trew (talk) 08:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moving this to Zloty is appropriate only if it is the primary topic for this term, and I'd be mighty surprised if it was. I currently have no opinion on where the currency articles should point, but it does seem like a mess and so a discussion at an appropriate venue (possibly Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics? Somewhere in the manual of style?) would likely be a good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is primary. What else are you going to put there? But there is such an inconsistency, of currencies some of which are named for their countries and some of which are named just for themselves, that it is hard to argue it. Si Trew (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK I take it as you suggest to ikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics. Bt I am bloody useless at getting this kind of thing right so if I cock it up can you follow me? Si Trew (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant joke. In England, most Tesco stores have a "Polish" aisle with imported products for people from Poland (who have always been our allies). (Poland was the first country Tesco expanded to outside the UK; Hungary was the second). What I tend to do is move the Mr Sheen and boot polish and Windolene and stuff like that round into that section: but I have never been found out yet. Si Trew (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This character does not exist in the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters and is a less-then-minor character in the Tintin canon. Delete as soon as possible. I support BDD for listing this for deletion. Si Trew or Thryduulf are welcome to improve the polish currency pages as they state above, as it is irrelevant to this page. Prhartcom (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify, SimonTrew and Thryduulf, do either of you want this redirect kept? --BDD (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have an opinion about this redirect, other than it should definitely not be moved to zloty. I haven't investigated the Tintin characters and don't have the time presently. I don't see a reason to doubt Prthartcom's findings, but I don't understand why they feel the need to hurry? Thryduulf (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that Zloti or Zloty was primary rather than Polish zloty. What other country has a currency called that? So there is no need to call it "Polish Zloty". Forint redirects to Hungarian forint and as I mentioned above schilling redirects to Austrian schilling, Kenyan shilling has an article but shilling goes back to the old British shilling (I remember King George VI on the obverse because with decimalisation they made them the same size and weight on purpose and looked just like my dad, cos my dad worked away a lot I thought there he is right on the coins, not that I thought he was the King but he was a dead ringer for old George, bald and ugly, traits I have inherited). Perhaps there is a policy to name currencies starting with the country name, but I couldn't find it and is not mentioned at WP:CURRENCY. If there's no connection to Hergés adventures of TinTin, I should say delete it. Si Trew (talk) 18:23, 18 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.

Wikipedia:MDB[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) 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This cross-namespace redirect is not helpful as a functional shortcut. Recommend either delete or retarget (I'm just not sure of the target.) Steel1943 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: After posting this, I noticed that a possible target may be Wikipedia:Mass message senders (since it relates to the current target), but I'm not entire sure that is the best option since no part of that page has a reference specifically to the "MDB" acronym. Steel1943 (talk) 15:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the bot isnt operating, and unlikely to ever operate due to new features in the MediaWiki software. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John Vandenberg. — Scott • talk 13:23, 12 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 Artificial Salmon[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. JohnCD (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's the "artificial" that makes this an unlikely search term. Si Trew (talk) 10:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I couldn't have left it as "World's Largest Salmon" as it was never alive. This was mentioned but not linked from the article List of world's largest roadside attractions that I reformatted, if they are untrue please vote and feel free to delete, I have no sentimental attachment, it was bothering me that they were there but never linked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogie75 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's clearly a large salmon sculpture there, but no indication that it's the world's largest. Besides, "artificial salmon" implies an artificial (e.g., robotic) organism, not a work of art. --BDD (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a mean of disseminating unreferenced information and getting away with giving the source. And besides, the phrase implies that the subject of the redirect is an actual salmon, albeit synthetically made. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Big Things are great, and this might be the biggest of its kind (user:Bilby maybe you know about this one and the redirects below?), but I am not keen on this redirect unless this title is sourced really well. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:03, 12 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 Artificial Mastodon[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) 16:49, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's the "artificial" that makes this an unlikely search term. What would be the world's largest real mastodon, then? They've been extinct for a bit. Si Trew (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The worlds largest real mastodon would probably be the skeleton or once that was once alive?17:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogie75 (talk • contribs)
Yes, I think that would probably be the case. But a lot of skeletons in musea are actually plaster casts of other skeletons or various bits from various animals stuck together (the giant Brontosaurus in the main hall of the London Natural History Museum is for example) so I don't imagine there would be a "world's largest" in that way. Si Trew (talk) 09:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a mean of disseminating unreferenced information and getting away with giving the source. And besides, the phrase implies that the subject of the redirect is a genuine mastadon, albeit synthetically made. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - needs better sourcing. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:05, 12 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 Artificial Orange[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. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's the "artificial" that makes this an unlikely search term. Si Trew (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I couldn't have keep it as "Worlds Largest Orange" as it was never alive. This was mentioned but not linked from the article List of world's largest roadside attractions that I reformatted, if they are untrue please vote and feel free to delete, I have no sentimental attachment, it was bothering me that they were there but never linked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogie75 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no indication that this is the world's largest anything, and being an orange sphere doesn't mean that it's necessarily supposed to be an orange. And, like with the salmon sculpture, "artificial" implies a constructed specimen, not a building. --BDD (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My personal issue with this redirect is that a Google search for this query actually returns more results from Florida than Canadia. Orange World, located somewhere around Orlando(?) has a height of 60 feet, according to this thingy, and change, like Hogie75 noted, is pretty much impossible without further detracting. ~Helicopter Llama~ 17:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a mean of disseminating unreferenced information and getting away with giving the source. And besides, the phrase implies that the subject of the redirect is a real orange, albeit synthetically made. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I got a good LOL out of this. And yes, who knows, there might be a larger fake orange in someone's backyard. And there is that building that is shaped like a fake orange...in Florida, someplace. I also high doubt that "Worlds Largest Artificial Orange," is a common search term :) SarahStierch (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - needs better sourcing. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:08, 12 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 Artificial Coin[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. JohnCD (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's the "artificial" that makes this an unlikely search term. (I have actually driven past this and it's not very impressive really). Si Trew (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I couldn't have said "Worlds Largest Coin" as that would lead people to think of currency which this is not. This was mentioned but not linked from the article List of world's largest roadside attractions that I reformatted, if they are untrue please vote and feel free to delete, I have no sentimental attachment, it was bothering me that they were there but never linked.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogie75 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no indication that it's the world's largest, and "artificial coin" is an absurd phrase. Coinage is not natural or organic; every coin in my wallet is artificial. The Big Nickel is not a large coin; it is an artistic depiction of a coin. Sorry to get all philosophical here, but it's true. --BDD (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blimey, you have coins in your wallet? You're doing better than me then :) Si Trew (talk) 07:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get too excited. Here in 'Murica we don't have fancy valuable coins you have across the pond. What can I get for 15 pence? --BDD (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard that question before, "what can I get for fifteen pence", but politely declined. Did you see the new design of the twelve-sided one pound coin? It looks very nice I think. It's not on Wikipedia yet, perhaps a bit WP:CRYSTAL although it is being minted for next year down at Llantrisant, the hole with the mint in it. Si Trew (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can get a 3 microfarad capacitor in Maplin Electronics for nine pence. You could also maybe get a packet of Rizla papers, but they seem to be more pricey nowadays. On the other hand, a UK ten penny piece works in a Canadian parking meter as a quarter: which depending on the exchange rate saves you approximately nothing. Si Trew (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looks like a mean of disseminating unreferenced information and getting away with giving the source. And besides, what construes a natural coin? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the story on the target article is great! but the redirects assertion needs to be sourced. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:16, 12 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 Artificial Pysanka[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 18#World's Largest Artificial Pysanka

India After Gandhi: The History of the World's Largest Democracy[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. --BDD (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't usually enter books by subtitle, per WP:TITLE, this is unnecessary. Si Trew (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Just because we don't include book subtitles in our article titles does not make them bad redirects. Indeed, on the contrary the full title of a book is a very likely search term - doubly so if there are other books with similar titles. Deletion would bring absolutely no benefit to the encyclopaedia while inconveniencing people who use it and potentially breaking incomming links. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SUBTITLE, which says "Except for extremely long [full titles], it is best to provide redirects from the title including the subtitle." --BDD (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDD. I wasn't aware of that. Si Trew (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible search term, and I don't think there's any need for disambiguation. WilyD 09:51, 8 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 port[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 April 18#World's largest port

List of largest world's largest islands[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) 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Perhaps I am being overly pedantic, but the redirect seems unnecessary and – which is more to the point – harmful: let the search engine do it. We also have "largest" twice in the title: unlikely search term. Si Trew (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete seems overly redundant for a redirect "largest world's largest"? pointless repetition. -- 70.24.250.235 (talk) 03:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have to agree with the comments above about the repetitiveness of "largest world's largest" islands. A list titled "List of world's largest islands" would be more appropriate, despite its obvious ambiguity over size versus population. But using "List of largest world's largest island" is just poor English and probably does not belong in an encyclopedia. Steve . Stevenmitchell (talk) 23:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as redundant.--Lenticel (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete. Viable search leading to a correct page. It is what the reader looked for. -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, misread the title. Delete. -DePiep (talk) 07:19, 12 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.

Lists of the world’s largest pipe organs[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 moved to List of the world's largest pipe organs without leaving a redirect. Everyone happy with that? --BDD (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as below. I have no objection to the list, but nobody will search for the world's largest pipe organ this way, and the R to section is not to the "World's Largest" but to section "Large Organs", which does not actually exist (I imagine it did some time in its history). I suppose lots of people search Google for large organs and get surprising results! Si Trew (talk) 10:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to List_of_pipe_organs#The_largest_pipe_organs_in_the_world where it is discussed. The idea that nobody will search for this is completely absurd, regardless of your view of the morality of it, people are obsessed with big things. WilyD 09:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per WilyD. It's not a question of morality but simply whether it is a likely search term and helps or hinders people finding what they want. The reason I said nobody would search of it is that it is "Lists of", not "List of", so that implies that there are a number of lists of the world's largest pipe organs and someone is going to search for "Lists of", which seems unlikely: however, for incoming links etc it is better to retarget it where you said than delete it. I did actually throw "large organ" into Google earlier and to my surprise it came up with loads of results for musical instruments when I was expecting to get something else. Si Trew (talk) 10:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget as above, and rename to List of the world's largest pipe organs while we're at it, so it not only makes sense but complies with MOS:PUNCT, as if you look carefully at this title you'll notice that it contains a curly apostrophe. — Scott • talk 13:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed the curly apos but I am on a small screen. Well spotted. Si Trew (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I only noticed myself while pasting it into the search box in order to check for a singular version. Very easy to miss. — Scott • talk 00:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant comment. Ryanair, after complaints several years ago, now allow musical instruments to be taken on board the aircraft for free. One day, then, I am going to turn up with the world's largest organ and see how they like it. 10:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonTrew (talk • contribs)
Comment'. Although that was just my joking, do we need to do something with world's largest organ then? It redirects to Wanamaker Organ, but the lede starts The Wanamaker Grand Court Organ, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, is the largest operational(ref) pipe organ in the world. I am not sure that is true. I have had the pleasure of hearing the Royal Albert Hall Organ at The Proms and that article says it is the second-largest in the UK after that in Liverpool Cathedral. Something needs to be sorted out here. List of pipe organs calls the Philly one the "second largest organ based on number of pipes, and the largest in the world based on number of ranks and physical mass weight". Since mass and weight scientifically are different things, that is a bit meaningless in itself, but if the list says it is the second largest then why should World's largest organ redirect to it? Si Trew (talk) 10:08, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move without leaving a redirect and retarget, or .. umm .. just delete it. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:52, 12 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 Artificial Bottle of Lemon & Paeroa[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 as G7. --BDD (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are not the Guinness Book of Records. Si Trew (talk) 10:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I agree with this one, it was just a reformat of the page that I linked it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hogie75 (talk • contribs) 13:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not discussed at target, encourage creation. WilyD 09:48, 8 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.

Wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, Negeri Sembilan[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) 16:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This redirect should be deleted for un-debateable reasons. Dustin (talk) 00:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no one would type that into a search bar.--70.49.72.34 (talk) 04:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per 70.49. Si Trew (talk) 10:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Very improbable redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While this was the result of a move, on 1 February this year, the page was only a few hours old at that point so the chance of external link is very low. If someone were to look for an article using the url in the search bar (which is possible but unlikely) they would almost certainly include at least the "en." and probably the http:// or https:// as well, making this a very improbable search term. Thryduulf (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debate. No, wait, I mean delete. — Scott • talk 07:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why won't you change the bolded text to read Delete instead? Dustin (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debate. There should be a speedy criteria that caters for deleting very wrong redirects a few days after the page has been given a reasonable name. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I will add that I stumbled upon this redirect a few days ago when I was creating several domain name redirects. I figured that wikipedia.org already had one, but decided to type that into the search bar, just in case; two results appeared: Wikipedia.org and Wikipedia.org/wiki/Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, Negeri Sembilan. The redirect appeared quite out of place, and I didn't figure that anyone would ever think to search the target page by typing in such a long URL (plus, as Thryduulf has pointed out, it neglected en). For those reasons, and others, I listed the redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, but I lazed out on giving the reasons for deletion. Dustin (talk) 04:44, 13 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.

Portal:Hindi[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. BencherliteTalk 08:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This portal redirect to Portal:India having to relation to this. Wikiuser13 (talk | contribs) 08:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am no expert in this, but there is Portal:Hinduism and perhaps it could be redirected there? But of course I understand the language and the religion are different things. Si Trew (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as misleading. We don't have a portal on Hindi. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 28 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) 00:13, 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_7&oldid=1144406147"