Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on February 12, 2014.

Hüseyin Avni Mutlu[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 now an article. WJBscribe (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:REDLINK. The governor of Istanbul Province is surely notable. The article says that the province and city have been coterminous since 2004, so I don't know why it needs a governor and a mayor, but this is apparently the case. --BDD (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - seems like a good case for redlinking to encourage creation. WilyD 10:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done Redirect was replaced by article text. --CeeGee 20:42, 19 February 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.

Jernade Miah (singer)[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) 00:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the redirect: Target page is not occupied by an ambiguous topic therefore a disambiguation redirect seems redundant, unnecessary and serves no purpose. Tanbircdq (talk) 13:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - clearly directs the reader/editor to what they're looking for, and no argument has been presented to support deletion (nor can I think of one). WilyD 22:06, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Regardless of whether it directs the reader to what they are looking for or not, the argument is that it is not useful or needed. If a reader searches "Jernade Miah" they would reach the intended article without any problems, as the article title does not share ambiguity with another (e.g. hypothetically being a primary topic to a "Jernade Miah (actor)") there would be no reason for the reader to search "Jernade Miah (singer)". Therefore a further "Jernade Miah (singer)" redirect is not needed as it does not actually serve a purpose.
Note: The redirect was a result of a page move to remove the unnecessary disambiguation. Also if the subject was also known simply as Jernade then there could be an argument to have a redirect of Jernade (singer) like there is a Billie (singer) redirect for Billie Piper. Tanbircdq (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unneeded is not an argument that supports deletion, it's just an argument that suggests there's no reason to keep it. Of course, readers will search with an unnecessarily high level of precision with regularity - until you search, you're unlikely to know how much precision is needed, so you have to guess. Sometimes you'll guess too high. So the redirect is useful, which motivates us to keep it, and there's nothing that motivates us to delete it, so we must conclude it should be kept. WilyD 10:28, 13 February 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.

Balansae[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 as no longer in scope. Anyone may nominate it at AfD/Prod if they desire. Thryduulf (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Many plant species have this specific epithet balansae, so redirecting to just one doesn't seem right. As for replacing the redirect with an article, I don't currently see a need or precedent for lists of plants by specific epithet. Declangi (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Balansae has now been expanded to an article by NotWith, so I think this particular RfD no longer needs consideration. Declangi (talk) 20:38, 12 February 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.

Suth anston[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 February 24#Suth anston

-osis[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 Osis. --BDD (talk) 01:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. It's redundant to have an entire article on a suffix just to redirect to Wiktionary. KJ click here 01:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Otherstuff reasoning. Also a valid conclusion: let's delete 1199 more. When a contrary conclusion is possible with the very same argument, the argument is idle. -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a dictionary. Predefined search outside of enwiki: ad hoc, incidental, clearly not wiki-search basics. -DePiep (talk) 14:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' "Not a dictionary" is a reason not to have dictionaric articles, it is irrelevant to soft redirects to Wiktionary (Which is a dictionary). I have no idea what on earth you mean by "ad hoc, incidental, clearly not wiki-search basics". Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per reasoning advanced by DePiep. — Scott • talk 15:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • retarget to Osis, where there is a mention of the suffix and a link to Wiktionary. Thryduulf (talk) 09:22, 17 February 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:NOA[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 Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by article count. --BDD (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia_talk:List_of_Wikipedians_by_article_count#Something_is_dreadfully_wrong.... Wikipedia_talk:List_of_Wikipedians_by_article_count#More_shortcuts.21 Tito☸Dutta 00:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Tito☸Dutta 19:02, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, you are right. I gave a wrong link. I have fixed it Tito☸Dutta 19:02, 12 February 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_February_12&oldid=1050184324"