Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on March 2, 2014.

Today in Philadelphia[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. [Title not in target article. No evidence that it was an alternate name provided.] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, because the target does not mention "Today in Philadelphia", nor did it even do so in this version when the redirect was created. – Fayenatic London 15:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I can't work this out but presumably this is the name of a program or is used as a strapline on that television station (NBC 10)? A google search for me didn't bring much up, but I am not in the US let alone Pennsylvania or Philadelphia and so get different targeted results. I get a few results for NBC 10 (WCAU) but not for "Today in Philadelphia".
It is a balance, would someone come to Wikipedia and type "Today in Philadelphia" to get the news from Philadelphia, and if they did, would they succeed or get annoyed? First, Wikipedia is not a news channel, and second, it directs them not to the news but to an encyclopaedia article about a news channel (which is what an encyclopaedia is for).
The stats show that it gets about 1 hit every three days (excluding of course the extra hits because of this discussion) so on balance I would say delete, but it is a fine balance. WP:NOTNEWS but is it doing any harm? If not, where to redirect it? Si Trew (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Station's morning show is currently titled NBC 10 Today. Likely it was titled Today in Philadelphia in the past and likely remains as a casual title for the show (or as a tagline), and as Simon said the RD is getting incoming hits; as an NBC O&O in Philadelphia you would assume they're using the Today branding (many NBC affiliates use the Today in (City/Region) title for their morning show). This isn't really doing any harm as far as I see, and there are plenty of station articles which have their morning show names going into station articles. Nate • (chatter) 03:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not mentioned at the target article, and thus confusing and misleading. --BDD (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again I say, who's looking for this? Ned1230|Whine|Stalk 19:28, 14 March 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.

Phone patch[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 14#Phone patch

Amsterdam Concenrtgebouw[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 by RHaworth. Thryduulf (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: implausible typo Buxtehude (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Quite plausible typo. Si Trew (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • To be clear: there is an extra 'n' in 'concert'. The 'n' is not even near the correct letters on the keyboards that I know of. Buxtehude (talk) 14:47, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh, I see that now, the extra N. now, would an ENGLISH typist accedentally type that extra N AND ALSO make the mistake of calling it "Amsterdam" rather than "Royal" (or the Dutch "Koenig" etc). I doubt the "Amsterdam" versus "Royal" is in question, right, just the extra N? In that case yes definitely it is an unlikely search term and should be deleted. Typos are OK but a bizarre combination of them actually hurts the search engine rather than enhances it. Agree with you, Delete. Yet someone must have typed this to create it... the problem is there are too many tools now for editing Wikipedia so people act before they think. Si Trew (talk) 15:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, just the extra 'n' is in question. Buxtehude (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And the redirect [Amsterdam Concertgebouw] already exists, so that there is no need for this typo, even if someone does typo it (an English speaker may get "gebouw" wrong for example as that is not a common way of putting letters together in English) then that is what the search engine is for. Strong Delete. Si Trew (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under CSD:G6 housekeeping. Butehude has tied up all the links and moved the page to the correct title etc. so I think this can go as a speedy for housekeeping, I will do that now but I am not an admin. Si Trew (talk) 22:17, 3 March 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.

User talk:Sandbo[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 per request of sole author. — Scott • talk 13:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need for this redirect [[User:A915|A915]] a (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Others are better on the procedures and can tell you more, but this is a redirect from user space into user space. I thought RfD was about things in article space? Si Trew (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, the only redirects RfD doesn't deal with are Category: to Category: ones which are handled at CfD. Thryduulf (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I can never remember "the rules" as all the different XfDs have their own kinda eccentricities and precedents built up over the years (as indeed do I, that's part of the fun of life). Then I suppose this should be Keep since it does no harm. Si Trew (talk) 09:12, 3 March 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.

Miss Fire[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 Miss Earth#Titles and semi-finalists. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does "Miss Fire" represents "Miss Earth"? UBStalk 08:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refine target tp Miss Earth#Titles and semi-finalists. This started life as a redirect to Miss Earth Fire. According to the stub that very briefly existed there before it was redirected, the third placed contestant at the Miss Earth contest is awarded the title "Miss Earth Fire" or "Miss Fire". This information is now present in the "Titles and semi-finalists" section of the target article, so the redirect should point there. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refine target to Miss Earth#Titles and semi-finalists per Thryduulf.--Lenticel (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to the DAB at Misfire and add the entry there (assuming that this is at all notable). Si Trew (talk) 09:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought about the dab, but I really don't think "Miss Fire" is a likely misspelling of "misfire". ("Missfire" on the other hand I am about to redirect to the dab). Whether the pageant title should be included on the dab - if this title redirects there then absolutely it should, I'm ambivalent otherwise. While the notability of the pageant hasn't been tested at AfD, there has been scrutiny of the article style and references over the years (the article was created in 2006) and there seems to have been consensus that the claim to be one of the top three worldwide pageant competitions is verifiable. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I think it is a reasonable typo: the thing is most smartphones and tablets etc (of course being old fashioned I just pay out twelve miles of twin pair everywhere I go behind my phone) have the auto correct stuff and they will change one for the other without you knowing, so the job of redirects gets harder to kinda outsmart that autocorrection. If a smartphone or Microsoft Word changed "misfire" to "miss fire", or the other way about, what would someone want? Yet who shouts "misfire" except me when I was doing missile firing trials twenty-five years ago, so I am not sure if it is a likely or unlikely search term. If the target is not notable, and it seems not cos it just is in a section about a beauty competition, then probably best to delete it entirely and let the search engine deal with it. Si Trew (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument there is an argument for a hatnote at the top of the target section linking to the misfire dab. While beauty contests may not be the most notable topic in the encyclopaedia as far as you are concerned, I think that directing people to an actual use of "Miss Fire" is better than sending them via a dab page that would list it as a see also (as it's not an entry for "misfire"). Thryduulf (talk) 00:19, 4 March 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.

"No! This Can't Be Happening To Me!"[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) 17:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect of a verbatim phrase complete with punctuation. Unsuitable as a search term. If this is retained, then every variation of the phrase including "This Can't Be Happening To Me!", "This can't be happening to me", "This Can't Be Happening to Me" and so on would have to be created as well. Shearonink (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reason to have this as a redirect. Not a notable topic, or even an entity worth having as an article or redirect. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If this redirect had a long history I'd be considering keeping it, as the target is logical, but this was created less than 12 hours ago. If this were a set phrase notable in some other context (e.g. as a catchphrase from somewhere) I'd consider retargetting it to the article about that comic/sitcom/whatever but I can't find any evidence that it is, and in any case the inclusion of the quotation marks does reduce the plausibility of it as a search term. Thryduulf (talk) 12:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)u[reply]
  • Delete Per Thryduulf. Si Trew (talk) 21:20, 2 March 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.

Atisone Seiuli[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 - now an article and so out of scope for RfD. AfD is available if anyone desires. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This person in not mentioned in the article it redirects to. Kaimahi (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to stub. From a quick Google search, he/she seems to be a transvestite or transgender prostitute (the Google articles differ on which) that Murphy was caught up with in some way. I think I will make this into a stub article, and deliberately not add a reference in Murphy's as WP:BLP and I imagine others who know better will be able to add it more coherently. Si Trew (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted it to a stub with some references. I wouldn't touch him with a bargepole and I doubt he is WP:N on his own, since that is just really inherited from his association with Murphy. It should really be incorporated into the Murphy article but without looking that up, I can imagine somehow whenever it gets inserted Murphy fans remove it? I'd never heard of him myself as I don't follow what Murphy is up to or scandal rags generally. But I think for the moment it's better as a stub than a redirect, deliberately I have not touched the Murphy article.
So, since it is now an article and not a redirect, it has no place at RfD and should go speedy close. Si Trew (talk) 11:36, 2 March 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_March_2&oldid=1146015751"