Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

December 18[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 18, 2014.

The Last Witch Hunter (2014 film)[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 The Last Witch Hunter. --BDD (talk) 22:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A currently unneeded redirect and since the dab year is wrong, likely implausible as well. Film is not set for release before 2015. Safiel (talk) 03:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually the redirect does not need to be exist, as the film is going to be released in 2015. It's simple that it should be deleted now, when we need a dab, we'd create one. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 10:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Si Trew. The stats show that this is being used, so it does need to exist. Even if it didn't need to exist, once a redirect does exist we do not delete it unless it is harmful. There is no evidence that this is harmful. Thryduulf (talk) 10:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Right now, it's looking like this will be kept, though if the film ends up delayed further, the redirect would become increasingly implausible as a search term.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:16, 18 December 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.

Example of low wage job[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. A pointy redirect to which deletion reason #3 applies. There is no consensus on a retargeting but the overriding exigency is to remove this one. This is without prejudice to creating a new redirect to McJob if an editor considers that it is justified and defensible in which case a new discussion would likely be appropriate. Just Chilling (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disparaging redirect, as covered under deletion reason #3. Not likely to be useful to people looking for McDonald's. Oleaster (talk·contribs) 20:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I thought of G10, but it's probably factual in that respect. As a redirect, it's obviously not intended to be nice to anyone, and it's an implausible search term. Peridon (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. This redirect could be turned into a list article if some sort, but I could see that page becoming solely a vandalism magnet. Steel1943 (talk) 22:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to McJob, as does Low-wage job. If not, also Delete "Low-wage job" by the same reasoning, and perhaps McJob itself.
FWIW, it's all redlink at alternative names/punc Low paid job, Low-paid job and Low wage job.
Or retarget to Wikipedia? I get paid nothing for this! Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I feel ya, Jimbo owes me like, a zillion barnstars :P. --Lenticel (talk) 03:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wanna be a zillionaire... (I couldn't help myself.) Steel1943 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to McJob per Si Trew.--Lenticel (talk) 01:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; McJob is a neologism created in direct response to McDonald's business practices, whereas "Example of low wage job" clearly is not. The phrase (complete with its decidedly less-than-grammatical construction) is obviously generic, so it has no business being redirected to a specific company. As there isn't anywhere good to retarget it, it should be deleted. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to McJob per above. No need to delete if another plausible article exists to redirect to. If McJob is a non-encyclopedic neologism, it should go to AFD and then its redirects should be deleted. But until that consensus is formed, redirecting there is the right thing. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Even setting all that aside, how many people would seriously run a search using this exact combination of perfect spelling and mangled grammar? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to McJob per above. Interestingly this lists "shampooers" beneath fast food workers. Is an article on Shampooers needed? @Si Trew redirect to Wikipedia not appropriate unless the redirect was from "not paid job" or "no wage job" or some similar term. --Mrjulesd (talk) 02:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Singling out a particular company for a disparaging purpose, when the same could apply to many other companies, is wrong and violates policy. -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Blade of the Northern Lights. --BDD (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete You cannot target one company as an example of a "low wage job", else the company can make claims of disparagement, etc. Dusti*Let's talk!* 16:21, 7 December 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, BDD (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to McJob per Si Trew and others. As explained at McJob, the term is more than a neologism about a particular organization, it has become common slang for the phenomenon of low-quality jobs from any employer, thus the term is not disparaging to McDonalds and that criterion for deletion is not applicable here. Ivanvector (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this isn't even a decent grammatical construction. This is why, for instance, we don't have Example of very tall building redirecting to either Burj Khalifa or skyscraper. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since a McDonald's employee made $9,496,664 in 2013[1], I hardly consider this a "low-wage" job. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Donald Thompson". Forbes. Retrieved 22 December 2014.
  • Delete as the people calling for a retarget make no sense to me. This phrase isn't used in that article and it seems to me like an implausible search term. As such, deleting it is the best course of action. Tavix |  Talk  04:29, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Due to the seemingly lack of consensus in this discussion, I could only see consensus becoming clearer if somehow the redirect Low-wage job was bundled with this discussion. I mean, that's why I voted for the nominated redirect to target the formerly-mentioned redirect's target. If the two redirects were bundled in a nomination, it may be simpler for consensus to be reached. Or, maybe the consensus is currently at a status quo to delete both. I'm not too sure. Steel1943 (talk) 22:33, 31 December 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.

Devaraja Prathapa Varma[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, though I've unprotected the page to allow overwriting the redirect with an article, which would be encouraged. --BDD (talk) 14:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unwanted redirect. I intend to make an entire article on this topic with notability, reliable sources and in neutral point of view. Thanks. Wiki-senator 16:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

  • You don't need the redirect to be deleted, you can just overwrite it with your article. If you want to write a draft first, then go ahead, and use the requested moves procedure when it's ready for main space. Thryduulf (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: The redirect page is edit protected. (Why? History gives no clue, and the target itself is only semi-protected – I've just subbed it.) Perhaps hence the request here and also why it hasn't the RfD banner on it. I've subst'd an RFDNote on its talk page (I know that's not ideal). Si Trew (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the redirect gives an explicit reason for the protection by user:Black Kite: "Protected Devaraja Prathapa Varma: Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content ([Edit=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite) [Move=Block all non-admin users] (indefinite))" there wasn't any such happening at the redirect at that time and it looks to be a few days after an edit war at the target. I can't help more than that, but Black Kite may remember more. I've added the RfD tag but left it protected for now as I don't know if there is sitll a reason. Don't let this get in the way of any other admin removing the protection though. Thryduulf (talk)
If I remember correctly the unsourced article was being recreated under a number of different names including this one. Black Kite (talk) 11:08, 3 November 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, BDD (talk) 21:00, 18 December 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.

ANAPROF 1988[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) 17:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Soft redirect, "Soft redirects to non-English language editions of Wikipedia should be avoided because they will generally be unhelpful to English-language readers." Fram (talk) 15:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - On a totally technical note, soft redirects are supposed to be handled through WP:RFD, not WP:AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Transferred from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ANAPROF 1988 per Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Procedural_closure. czar ⨹ 20:04, 18 December 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.

List of Arubans[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 procedural close. I'm restoring the article and will leave an explanatory note on the talk page. I won't take it to AfD, but I don't object to someone else doing so. --BDD (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Notables have been removed from Aruba article. The pointer is unhelpful and misleading. Student7 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 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_December_18&oldid=1138579476"