Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 June 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 10, 2014.

Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker[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) 21:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all this mojibake per #Josi?1/2 Ramos-Horta. Gorobay (talk) 17:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete all per WP:CSD#G1. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 00:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment G1 deletion is wrong, since it isn't nonsense, it make sense, as mojibake are a form of typo, {{R from typo}}. Whether this form of typo is desirable or not is not the same as being nonsense. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as mojibake are unlikely spellings. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete the Eubot (talk · contribs) redirects as G1 nonsense, since those are nonsense, and not mojibake. User:Eubot's bot edit creation of redirects are really a mess.-- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete all per Dmitri, nom an 65.94. Unlikely search terms. I am not sure Dmitri's speedy delete applies, but I wouldn't be against it if it went speedy. Si Trew editing as IP 85.238.64.128 (talk) 08:12, 11 June 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.

Βασιλεία ΙΙ[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) 09:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not Greek. Gorobay (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I was wondering if it should go to Basilica. Si Trew editing as IP 85.238.64.128 (talk) 08:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I was a bit confused by these two, assuming it was King Basil the Second (to transliterate)... is their any guidance on how we name treaties etc? Since I would imagine someone throwing in Basel II or Basil II would be looking for one of the kings rather than an international treaty... but I could be well wrong on that... you just played two kings not realising I had the ace. Si Trew editing as IP 85.238.64.128 (talk) 08:19, 11 June 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.

Josi?1/2 Ramos-Horta[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 per criterion G1: patent nonsense. (Non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very unlikely redirect, bot created a long time ago. Fram (talk) 09:45, 10 June 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 this deletion closure is technically invalid, since they are not G1 eligible, as they do make sense as mojibake. However, since I think they should be deleted anyways, as unlikely redirects, I'm not contesting the result (deletion) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis bonding[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) 09:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reason why we should have a redirect to a wikiversity article for this. If it isn't notable or established enough to be included in Wikipedia, then we shouldn't guide peole to a source we don't have conbtrol over and which has completely different inclusion standards. Either delete this, or redirect this to some in-Wikipedia article if a good target exists, but please don't redirect from our mainspace to Wikiversity. Fram (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was originally a Wikipedia article. By consensus on the now-deleted talk page, the article was moved to Wikiversity and a soft redirect was put in main space for the purpose of showing people who are looking for the subject where to go. Then, also by consensus, the article history and talk page was deleted, and the soft-redirect restored in its place. I performed this action. I have no objection to its removal, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At least restore the talk page so we know what this is all about. We don't normally delete talk pages after turning pages to redirects. Ego White Tray (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete transwiki'd articles do not need interproject redirects. If it wasn't appropriate Wikipedia content, then it shouldn't have a redirect. If the topic is encyclopedic then WP:REDLINK it should be a redlink. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural delete per 65.94. Si Trew editing as IP 85.238.64.128 (talk) 08:21, 11 June 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.

Aphrodisia[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 WP:CSD#G6. JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Make room for Draft:Aphrodisia. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:15, 10 June 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.

Pikachupokemon.exe[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. The default for redirects is to keep even if, as here, they are redirects that optimally one would not encourage the creation of. Such redirects are only deleted if they are in some way harmful. (The exception for recently created implausible typos or misnomers does not apply to this one.) Normally harm is indicated by one of the criteria in WP:RFD#DELETE being met. No claim of harm, matching any of those criteria, has been made. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect should be deleted. We do not need a redirect page for every executable file that belongs to every piece of malware, especially malware that only affected Win95, 98, and ME and was not even very widespread back then. I have added the executable file name to the target article (Pikachu virus) so in the unlikely event that someone does search for the file name, they'll find the article. Jeh (talk) 07:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: redirects are cheap, and this one is harmless. It is even mentioned in the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Response) It's mentioned in the article because I edited the article to put it there. Which is what should have been done instead of creating a redirect. Consider how many varieties of malware are out there (hundreds of times more than the number of executables in a legitimate copy of Windows). Do we really want a redirect page for the payload file for every one of them? Cataloging such is the job of the anti-malware companies, not Wikipedia. Jeh (talk) 10:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that this redirect should have never been created. Still, it is already there and nobody is harmed by it. Deleting it would unnecessarily take space on Wikipedia servers for no apparent benefit. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:22, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it's mentioned in the article now.--Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Delete. I see Lenticel's point, but if you see mine, this just helps to spread the virus (not literally but now it has infested Wikipedia already). 85.238.64.128 (talk) 08:22, 11 June 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.

Horse English Nine[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) 09:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Chinese and I understand that this is Chinglish, it is just each character of his name translated one by one, you can see what I mean here thus Delete TheChampionMan1234 06:26, 10 June 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.

George Washington's teeth[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 refine target to George_Washington#Personal_life that contains relevant information. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 01:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading. TheChampionMan1234 01:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and {{R to section}} per Lenticel. Deliberately not looking at that section, as far as I recall he had them carved out of wood, and some references say that is why he never smiled etc. I am deliberately not looking at the refs, but if I can remember reading that, someone else probably wants to look it up. Si Trew editing as IP. 85.238.64.128 (talk) 08:26, 11 June 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.

葡萄牙[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) 21:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Language is not particularly relevant Also delete:

  • Delete "ポルトガル" Japanese little related to Portugal, Portuguese were expelled from Japan half a millennium ago. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete the Indic script and Chinese names, as neither Goa nor Macau are Portuguese any longer, even if Portuguese is still used in Macau. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: When nominating multiple redirects for deletion, please mark all of them with {{subst:rfd}}. See WP:RFD#HOWTO. Gorobay (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The first three are Sanskrit, not Indic. The first is a stub in Hindi WP at [1]; there is a more detailed article at [2]. There is a brief filler in the India Times here discussing the term. Si trew editing as IP 85.238.64.128 (talk) 08:28, 11 June 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.

Zu@n: tsI[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 per criterion G1: patent nonsense. (Non-admin closure) — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 11:00, 10 June 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_June_10&oldid=1080034787"