Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2015.

Kopecz[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) 14:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a fairly minor Star Wars expanded universe character who mainly appeared in a few comic books. Not mentioned at either of the above targets. The character was covered at List of minor Star Wars Sith characters, but that was deleted years ago. The only remaining mention is in the Darth Bane article, but it's a mere passing mention. Delete. - Eureka Lott 23:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. I was actually going to make this same nomination yesterday when I created the Kopec disambiguation page but ended up forgetting about it. It's weird how that works sometime. Tavix |  Talk  23:18, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget' to the DAB you just created – that would seem the obvious thing to do.Si Trew (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's not the obvious thing to do. There is nothing at Kopec by the name of Kopecz except for this redirect. If you retarget it to the disambiguation, you would create an uphelpful loop right back to the disambiguation page if someone were to click on Kopecz. I'm also going to assume good faith by saying that you didn't see Lord Kopecz as part of the nomination? Tavix |  Talk 
  • Delete "Lord Kopecz" as a minor character from a deleted list article -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Kopecz" would have made a good redirect to a surname article for Kopeć, which no longer exists, as it is an alternate spelling of the surname -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:12, 13 April 2015 (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.

Bartho Smit[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 the article has now been created. (non-admin closure) Tavix |  Talk  00:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a South African writer. Currently it redirects to a stub article about a group of writers of which he was a part. Isn't it better to put make it a red link? Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - he's probably not independently notable but a likely search term, hence the redirect is valid. GiantSnowman 21:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RFD#D10: "If the redirect could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject." Tavix |  Talk  21:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tavix: - but it couldn't be expanded into an article, he doesn't appear to be independently notable... GiantSnowman 09:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look at it a little bit more. I feel like there's at least enough information and sources to qualify for a stub that meets WP:GNG. I think I'm going to (try) to make one when I have more time over the next couple of days. If not, I'll change my !vote. Tavix |  Talk  00:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he is notable, please make a stub - if not then the redirect is valid. GiantSnowman 17:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not much, but it's made. I'll probably go back and add more when I'm not so busy. Since it's no longer a redirect, any further issues should be brought up at AfD. Tavix |  Talk  00:58, 17 April 2015 (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.

Vaginal looseness[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) 14:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure it's necessary. Jerodlycett (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since you indicated these as a group, I've converted this into a multi-nomination for you. --BDD (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I !vote for someone to, hopefully, add something about tightness and looseness to vagina, and then for these to redirect there. Siuenti (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jerodlycett, BDD and Siuenti, these were redirects created by a WP:Banned editor; see here. I spot non-new editors easily (as noted on my user page), and it was no different spotting that editor. The Vagina article addresses vaginal tightness and looseness in its appropriate sections: Vaginal opening and hymen, Sexual activity and Infections and disorders. More, of course, can be added to those sections on the matter if needed. During the WP:Banned editor matter, I mentioned at WP:Med that the Vaginal tightening article is a mess and needs significant fixing up. But it is the main article for vaginal tightness/looseness. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this while doing new page patrolling for banned editors actually. I am just not sure if these are necessary, they're definitely not typos, so don't qualify for that. I brought them here for others to comment on, but I say delete. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with Delete probably by WP:RFD#D5 makes no sense. Your vagina cannot be tight and loose at the same time, that is a contradiction in terms. Si Trew (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I am here I will tell a long story. Man walks into a pub with an ostrich and a cat. Every time he goes to the bar he pays for an orange juice for the ostrich and half a pint for the cat. At the end of the evening the cat has never bought a drink. The barman asks him "why do you come here with this ostritch and this cat"? Well, I was granted three wishes. The first was to own my own home. Granted. The second, to have a fast car. Granted. The third, to have a great bird with long legs and a tight pussy. Si Trew (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason I proposed this is I'm not sure it's necessary. Can we show these being used? I still say I don't think there's a use for them so delete. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2015 (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.

Oneindia Tamil[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. JohnCD (talk) 08:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is correct. Jerodlycett (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be correct ([1] and may be a frequent search term. --Rayukk (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's definitely a version of Oneindia in Tamil. I don't know if it's called "Oneindia Tamil", but if we had a page on the Tamil version, this would definitely be an acceptable search term for it. My concern here is that anyone searching for this term is probably looking for specific information on the Tamil-language Oneindia. And all we really say about that at Oneindia is that it exists. Someone searching for "Oneindia Tamil" probably knows about Oneindia and would otherwise think to search for it, so I'm concerned that this redirect could be misleading. --BDD (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At RfD, it does not have to be correct, it has to be useful or at least not harmful. This seems useful. Milldy, cos it is a TV Channel stub at the target, but I see no harm in it. Si Trew (talk) 07:51, 12 April 2015 (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.

Guitar Hero PS3[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 Guitar_Hero#List_of_games. JohnCD (talk) 08:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was not the only PS3 Guitar Hero game. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 21:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Guitar_Hero#List_of_games. --Rayukk (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Rayukk. This provides a good place to start for anyone wanting to find any "Guitar Hero PS3" games. Tavix |  Talk  16:28, 12 April 2015 (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.

Option-Shift-K[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) 14:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generic computing command. I don't see how this is relevant to Apple Inc. specifically. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • On an Apple keyboard, Option-Shift-K generates the Apple logo. Since the Option key is unique to Apple keyboards, there's no ambiguity here. Refine target to Apple Inc.#Logo. - Eureka Lott 00:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't know. The command isn't mentioned there. That would make this amount to an Easter egg. Though I sort of think the same of the Unicode redirects, and they're almost always kept. --BDD (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2015 (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.

Broken Cydes[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 all. JohnCD (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not likely typos for target name. S doesn't appear to be a likely mistake that would be made after typing in the final E. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:58, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural delete: "The default result of any RfD nomination which receives no other discussion is delete." It's been a week. Let this die. Tavix |  Talk  22:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unlikely redirects. I think the most plausible of the bunch is "Broke ncydes" but I can sleep at night if it gets deleted.--Lenticel (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2015 (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/2015_April_11&oldid=1138579946"