Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2[edit]

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

Kɨmmanciŋʷɨ[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for this returns only Wikipedia mirrors. - TheChampionMan1234 23:59, 2 September 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.

Kana:wa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 8#Kana:wa

Federal Republic of America[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 9#Federal Republic of America

Product backlog[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 Backlog that covers all bases. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this redirect ought to exist. Product backlogs don't exist solely in this context. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget to Backlog dab page where it is discussed. I also think we need to populate the target dab page. --Lenticel (talk) 01:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Lenticel -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:43, 3 September 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.

Dunkman[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 October 14#Dunkman

Normal Bean[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. Legitimate pseudonym as mentioned in the target article. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly derogatory or disparaging but I am not confident at all about this. Mr. Guye (talk) 20:54, 2 September 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.

Texass[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 consensus is that this is a plausible typo. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad and quite possibly vandalistic misspelling. It would tend to discredit any article where it is found. When wikilinked it needs to come up as a redlink so that the OP (if an honest mistake) or another editor can soon pounce and correct it, together with any other errors in the vicinity. : Noyster (talk), 17:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep As probable typo; I'm not seeing any ill intent behind this as it's possible that some would type in two 'ss'es to get here; re Mississippi or Assiniboine or just has their constantly-used 's' key stuck. Only one vandal struck this rd four long years ago. Nate • (chatter) 00:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag as a misspelled redirect.--Lenticel (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tag with {{R from typo}} -- reduplication of letters would be an expected type of typo -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Tag as above. Plausible typo. Si Trew (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Tag per all above. LazyBastardGuy 00:01, 18 September 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.

Occupied Ulster[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) 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive redirect to Northern Ireland that was created in 2008 by an editor who in 2009 was blocked indefinitely for repeated disruptive editing. Referring to Northern Ireland as "Occupied Ulster" is deeply offensive to the majority of the people living there. Thomas.W talk 11:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Thomas.W for putting this here. This seems to have snoozed for five years til I inadvertently found it while idly searching for Operation Demetrius. I agree with your argument. Please can the redirect be deleted. 78.146.229.185 (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Kkj11210: The quote you linked to, "American troops have not only occupied Ulster but are arriving in increasing numbers in England", is totally irrelevant. John Amery, who said that, was a British fascist who was executed as a traitor in 1945, and it was a reference to US troops landing in Northern Ireland first during WW II, before landing anywhere else in the UK. Noone quotes Amery nowadays, in fact very few people have even heard of him. The redirect was created to imply that "Ulster is being occupied by the UK", a claim only IRA diehards make, which makes it an implausible redirect. Thomas.W talk 15:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that it exists on Brainyquote is adequate evidence that it is referred to as such. Even if the redirect is a claim made by an extremist group, the claim itself shows that the redirect is not implausible. KJ Discuss? 22:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic any combination of words would make a plausible redirect, as long as you can find a quote where that sequence of words is included. The quote "American troops have not only occupied Ulster but are arriving ..." has absolutely nothing to do with Occupied Ulster being a redirect to Northern Ireland. Thomas.W talk 18:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The pretty obvious implication of anyone who refers to 'Occupied Ulster' is that the United Kingdom is somehow in occupation of it (the majority of the people of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the UK - but of course that contention could be debated til kingdom-come). The reference Kkj11210 give is to American soldiers during WWII supposedly 'occupying Ulster'. That is plainly not what is referred to today, nor what is referred to by the redirect. 'Delete' 86.186.161.232 (talk) 14:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is called "The North" or "The Six Counties". Listen to the Sinn Fein and tell me it aint. It is never called Northern Ireland in Eire. As you imply, these terms are very politically loaded – and we have to do our best to be WP:NEUTRAL. Thank God that people aren't shooting each other any more but sitting at a combined parliament – one of the finest buildings in the United Kingdom, I think. The Rev. Dr. Ian Paisley used to preach outside it every Thursday, my Catholic Irish friend from Limavady said "as if he owned the place"!. I wonder if his death last week has kinda provoked these things? Si Trew (talk) 12:11, 17 September 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.

Itsembabwoko ry’Abayahudi[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) 19:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No particular relation to the Kinyarwanda language either. - TheChampionMan1234 08:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment According to http://kinyarwanda.net/index.php which is an online Rwandan dictionary, Itsembabwoko means "ethnic cleansing" and Abayahudi means "Jews." With that in mind, I believe it's not unlikely that the phrase Itsembabwoko ry’Abayahudi denotes in Rwandan what we refer to as "the Holocaust" in English. It would probably be a good idea to wait for someone fluent in Rwandan to weigh in on the issue before we take any action regarding this redirect. Iaritmioawp (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Why wait? If it is not English language, it does not belong in English language WP. Put it in Rwandan WP or make an Interwiki link. Si Trew (talk) 00:00, 14 September 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.

Holokausto[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. Thryduulf (talk) 12:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to the Ilokano language. - TheChampionMan1234 07:56, 2 September 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.

Hauptseitn[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) 19:27, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible typo of non-English title. - TheChampionMan1234 07:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the main page has no information in this language, so is improper navigation. The mainpage is not about the encyclopedic topic represented by this word, so is improper navigation. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it's safe to assume that the redirect was meant to be created on the German Wikipedia but something went wrong and it ended up here instead. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this is the norm for the main page to have it in all kinds of languages, though I'd be hard pressed to find the policy (and they don't seem to be "real" redirects). de:Main Page works, for example. (That being said it is Hauptseite not Hauptseitn, so is this just a typo?) Si Trew (talk) 13:13, 13 September 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.

The Fappening[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 snow keep. — RockMFR 01:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sophomoric name for the mentioned incident started on social media which has gotten traction in some of the lower-tier tabloid media/SEO blogs as seen here, but which more proper media isn't giving the time of day. This name doesn't belong here at all as a RD and is highly inappropriate; I shudder that I even have to argue a delete for this nomination. Outside of a few sensible longtime editors, the only contributors have been IP's and new accounts adding BLP violations to this in an attempt to fork off the properly-named article. Nate • (chatter) 04:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As described below, I withdraw my nomination with a keep attained and good points from everyone. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep: Well, with nearly ten years on Wikipedia and nearly 40,000 edits, I expect I'm not a fly-by-night anon IP. That being said, Wikipedia is still not censored. WP:NOT explicitly states that "However, some articles may include images, text or links that are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link. Beyond that, "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for removal (or inclusion) of content." That the nom finds the term abhorrent is plain, but his indignation can form no part of valid deletion grounds. As a standalone article, I agree that "The Fappening" is too flip. As a redirect of a term that has over 500 G-News hits (including on TMZ, Metro International and Business Insider) as well as large traction on social media, it's rather obvious. Does the nom have any valid grounds, set forth in deletion policy, to oppose the redirect? Ravenswing 05:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per reasons 3 and 5 from WP:R#KEEP. Google search engine returns 440,000 results for "the fappening" – most if not all of them related to the relevant event, leading one to believe that the redirect will be useful – as long as its target article is deemed Wikipedia-worthy of course. http://stats.grok.se/en/201409/The%20Fappening appears to corroborate that belief. The arguably inappropriate name by itself is insufficient grounds for deletion as per WP:RNEUTRAL which is a natural extension of WP:CENSOR. Iaritmioawp (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per above: Wikipedia is not censored, and this name is a relatively common title for the target of the redirect. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but protect. From what I can see in news hits, this is apparently a fairly well used term to describe the photo hack. ([1], [2], [3]) I highly, HIGHLY suggest locking it to where only admins can edit the redirect, as this will be prone to the expected shenanigans. But as a search term, it's valid enough as it is very frequently used and in places other than lower tabloid sources. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I want to specifically note that Reddit has/had this listed under "The Fappening" (can't check to see if the pictures are still up, since I'm at work) and they're specifically mentioned as one of the specific sites that helped further distribute the pictures, that makes it a reasonable redirect as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It may be sophomoric, but so is the GNAA. Doesn't change that it's being used by reliable sources. Keep the redirect to the main article. Protection also makes sense. --Jprg1966 (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid reason for deletion. And "...the only contributors have been IP's..." - there's no apostrophe in IPs. What are you? 12? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:05, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the thing about the Reddit name is that this is where some of the photos were re-posted and Reddit has specifically come under a lot of fire in the mainstream media for allowing the user to post the content. As far as news outlets go, the Metro has used it, as has the International Business Times, Washington Post, Belfast Telegraph, and Cornwall Free News. All of them are using the term "The Fappening" to describe the event, mostly in relation to how it's being used in social media as a whole. Plenty of legitimate news outlets are using the term and while I don't want to crystal ball here, I think that the usage of this term will only increase as more and more outlets report on the story as a whole as the amount of news outlets that have begun to use the term has greatly increased over the last 24 hours. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, here's a news article from the Telegraph where they discuss only the term "The Fappening". They do discuss the incident, but mostly it solely focuses on the term itself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - is it okay to have an RfD one day after an AfD has been posted on the article and is still pending? I'm just asking but it makes the process more complicated. Lajbi Holla @ me • CP 11:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: You'd hope not, really? But take a look at the time frame when the original The Fappening article was created, when an AfD was filed and when it was closed as a speedy delete without any commentary from any other editor but the nom: just a couple minutes. I consider that seriously abusive -- the whole reason for the AfD process is to give editors a chance to weigh in on articles, not as a backdoor to censor articles before there's a shred of effort to save them, as WP:BEFORE mandates. I quite understand that there are many decent people thoroughly disgusted that there are those making light of whacking off to the theft of private nude photos, but I really don't see how that moral indignation suspends WP:NOTCENSORED, never mind with the indecent speed shown, and reprimands to the censoring parties would be appropriate -- the more so in that the editor who nominated The Fappening for deletion in the first place, Fbifriday, did so as his first Wikipedia contribution in nearly a year, a fact normally considered suspect at AfD. Ravenswing 15:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep viable search term. IP vandalism is handled with semiprotection, not deletion. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to maintain consistency with other terms like Nipplegate that are used as redirects because they became synonymous with scandals. As others have mentioned, the term has been used by larger media outlets like the Telegraph and the New Yorker. Fortibus (talk)
  • Keep This is being used not only by blogs & low level sites but by larger US published news sources like Metro, UK sources like the Telegraph, and international (non English) sources like Gala. More to the point, it's an issue of utility. People will hear or see references to the event on the internet under that name and come looking. Without the redirect they won't find it, and will either go without the information or, much more problematically, make a good faith effort at creating a new page, meaning constant deletions.JamesG5 (talk) 17:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Protect per WP:NOTCENSORED, commonly used term in the media. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep used by many sources. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per tokyogirl79's numerous sources showing mainstream use. Kode (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being bothered by something does not warrant removing it. A redirect that would put a user in the proper place from an original slang term is highly apt. Dkkicks (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are cheap, and are supposed to be used to help people find information. What should happen when someone checks Wikipedia for "The Fappening", it just take them nowhere? Sometimes being the summary of all human knowledge means we include some crap. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would close this as snow keep but to be honest I don't know if non-admin closures are allowed here. Are they?Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, why not? It's WP:SNOW anyway, and the most recent arguments above are valid.
Clearly consensus has been reached to retain this; as long as the protection remains up and/or others are vigilant I'm less wary of this rd's direction. With hesitation for the term but with the discussion done, I choose to withdraw my nomination as a keep. Nate • (chatter) 00:27, 3 September 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.


Tchang Kaï Check[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. Give the number and length of delete arguments closing this as keep may seem incorrect, but the majority of those opinions are based on WP:FORRED which notes that redirects from foreign languages should generally be avoided unless there is a well-grounded reason for their inclusion. Such a reason has been provided by those advocating keep, and those advocating delete have not convincingly refuted that. Beyond that no evidence has been presented that this is harmful, so combined with the length of time this has existed I conclude the strongest arguments are those for keeping. Thryduulf (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search ([4]) for this spelling returns mostly WP mirrors, so I doubt that this is a valid alternative spelling. - TheChampionMan1234 03:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Likely typo by French speakers, based on a transliteration probably derived from the EFEO Chinese transcription. See the corresponding article at fr:Tchang Kaï-chek and try a Google search without brackets. Note: I have created this redirect 12 (twelve) years ago, yes, in November 2002, at a time when the corresponding French article did not exist: it was created 2 years later, in 2004. In this context, it was making sense to redirect a potential French typo to the English article. And I believe it still does. Olivier (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:FORRED, this is not appropriate, and no one would search for a French name of a Chinese politician on the English Wikipedia, no matter if there's a typo or not. - TheChampionMan1234 05:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't exactly "French", various EFEO transcriptions have been used in English in the past. I would say it is rare. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:FORRED is an essay, not a guideline
2) the case we are talking about here is not listed in this essay.
3) so you can tell us about French speakers using the English Wikipedia for researching Chinese topics: I am interested to learn more about it. Seriously.
4) Searches in Google most of the time point to Wikipedia. Having a redirect for typos is not only useful for searches within Wikipedia, but also for Google searches
5) I created this redirect after doing the typo myself.
6) Finally, TheChampionMan1234, have you considered making more constructive contributions to Wikipedia than suggesting to delete a very unimportant but potentially slightly useful redirect? Olivier (talk) 00:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.Unlikely typo. @Olivier:, you know so much about Wikipedia you should know how to make a list.

  1. Like this.
  2. Like that.
  3. Like the other.

Si Trew (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Olivier, Your arguments are spurious. FORRED is an essay, well let's say it is an guideline. We can still WP:BOLD, but this is a case of you saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are lots of things I don't like about Wikipedia, but we work together with consensus in the hope to make it a valuable resource worldwide. (At least I hope we do.) What kind of nonsense is this? I am a native English speaker who speaks sorta OK french and have translated many articles from French Wikipedia to English Wikipedia, which others have gone on to improve. I am just baffled by this lack of knowledge. If you know, say so. If you don't, shut up. Si Trew (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as far as I know, we have one word in English with that Diaeresis (diacritic), namely naïve. Even then it is mostly now spelled naive. Both redirect to naivety, which is pleasing considering the nature of the discussion. Now, give me an example of an English language word that has those diareses. Or leave it. Si Trew (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I note also, the French article (which I have read in full at fr:Tchang Kaï-chek) has a total of two references and no inline references. Not a bad article, de tu peut comprendre, anglaise Wikpedia, {{citation needed}} and so on. English article has 105 in the article, plus about a dozen each for further reading and for external references. De ju suis un fou, je connais. I can;t decide that the French article is better than the English. But you wouldn't get away with that on a high-status article in EN:WP with so few references and no inline references. Si Trew (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what you point actually is. I was referring to the French article because its title is "Tchang Kaï-chek", which is very close to "Tchang Kaï Check" (the spelling of the redirect we are talking about). Therefore a French speaker could easily type "Tchang Kaï Check" instead of "Tchang Kaï-chek" when making a Google search. Having this redirect allows us to capture this kind of searches and bring traffic to Wikipedia. If you feel that the French article lacks quality, you are certainly welcome to contribute and improve it. Olivier (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A typo that might possibly be made by a French speaker when looking for French language articles is no reason for having a redirect on the English language Wikipedia. Thomas.W talk 13:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The discussion has already established that the redirect is correct, and redirects are cheap. Frequency does not matter when the redirect is not a typo (this is an alternative transcription). Deryck C. 09:57, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Olivier, I've already !voted (delete). The point, which I admit I made rather over-elaborately, is that we can't have every possible foreign language redirect. Wikipedia is not a translation dictionary. As you admit, a French speaker could easily mistype it. But a French speaker would more likely use French Wikipedia. We do have foreign-language redirects, but at the very least this should be marked {{R from title with diacritics}}. As yo say, that is what a search engine is for, and these redirects often hinder, not help, a search. Si Trew (talk) 05:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not "admit" that "a French speaker could easily mistype it", it is a fact. I did not say "that is what a search engine is for", I said that redirects contribute to Wikipedia's SEO. That "a French speaker would more likely use the French [language] Wikipedia" is probably true, but many French speakers are actually fluent in English and a number of them use primarily the English language Wikipedia. WP:DICTIONARY, which is used in arguments in the discussions here, actually applies to articles, not redirects. Olivier (talk) 13:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Plausible redirect and per Olivier. Montanabw(talk) 04:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator & Si Trew. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 06:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:R#KEEP makes it very clear that redirects shouldn't be deleted if "someone finds them useful." WP:R#DELETE makes it equally clear that "[i]mprobable typos or misnomers are potential candidates for speedy deletion, if recently created [emphasis added]." The redirect being discussed certainly wasn't recently created, and someone apparently does find it useful as exemplified by some of the previous comments. Deleting it would hence defy our editing guidelines. I can see how from the viewpoint of a monolingual speaker of English who doesn't realize s/he's not the sole target demographic of the English Wikipedia, the redirect may appear to be counter-intuitive and thus clearly superfluous. However, let such a person be advised that in French, "ch" is most commonly pronounced as /ʃ/ and (almost?) never as /tʃ/. Therefore, it's conceivable that if a native speaker of French who also speaks English and uses the English Wikipedia were to hear someone say /ʃek/, which is the English pronunciation of the "shek" portion of Chiang Kai-shek's name, they'd be reasonably likely to assume "check" to be the correct spelling of the word. The same applies to "Tchang" which is a likely written interpretation of /tʃæŋ/ by a speaker of French. I'm not sure if we don't go a bit overboard with using the non-English letter "ï" but considering who the redirect is meant for, I don't suppose we do. Seeing how there are well over 300,000,000 speakers of French around the world, I'm partial towards keeping the redirect which is clearly a valid alternate transcription. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FORRED. I don't care if this is a correct French rendition of the name of a Chinese person—that's not something that belongs on the English Wikipedia either way. --BDD (talk) 19:26, 6 October 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_September_2&oldid=1144945250"