Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 July 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 29[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 29, 2015.

OBAMA![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) 16:55, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible search term. - TheChampionMan1234 23:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: looks made up. Rubbish computer 00:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! Why would you delete this? It points where it should, it's unambiguous, and it's exciting! Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep WP:CHEAP as a shout at a political rally -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That violates WP:DEM - TheChampionMan1234 23:18, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DEM -- Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy How does that do that? Are we just ballotting and counting votes? Or are we evaluating the rationales behind the opinions? WP:DEM means that this is just a WP:VOTE, which it isn't, since I've provided an opinion to base my position on, a !VOTE (NOTvote), like WP:CHEAP and the usage in the real world in association with the topic that this redirect targets. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Keep per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:39, 30 July 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.

1,000,000,000,000,000[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 Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1015. --BDD (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a name of a large number. It is a numeral. Marsbar8 (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comma Dot Space
1,000 → 1000 (number) 1.000 1 000
10,000 → 10000 (a DAB) 10.000 → 10000 10 000 → 10000 (number)
100,000 → 100000 (number) 100.000 100 000
1,000,000 → Million 1.000.000 → Million 1 000 000
1,000,000,000 is an article 1.000.000.000 1 000 000 000
1,000,000,000,000 → Orders of magnitude (numbers)#1012 1.000.000.000.000 1 000 000 000 000
1,000,000,000,000,000 (this redirect) → Names of large numbers 1.000.000.000.000.000 1 000 000 000 000 000
1,000,000,000,000,000,000 1.000.000.000.000.000.000 1 000 000 000 000 000 000
Si Trew (talk) 13:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Updated to tabulate existing info Si Trew (talk) 13:42, 3 August 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.

JC Nicholson, Jr.[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 create article, with thanks to those who contributed here. I'll be copying what was created here to J.C. Nicholson, which seems like the simplest possible title. I think Si Trew is right, though—generally it's better to do this in draft space or a userpage or something. The edit history of this page will always be available, but there's plenty of other history here too. --BDD (talk) 16:39, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP. J. C. Nicholson is Dylann Roof's circuit court judge. While he is mentioned at Dylann's article, I don't think it's a good idea to redirect him there. He's seems like he could be notable as he's been in the legal system for 40 years so I'm also suggesting WP:REDLINK as an option. Also, this seems to smell of WP:RECENTISM due to the high profile Dylann Roof case, but I'm not sure if this would be his most notable case or have any lasting notability from it. Since he's mentioned, Dylann Roof will appear in the search results but there's no need to make that connection obvious. -- Tavix (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per all of above points Rubbish computer 20:57, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or retarget - I cannot find another article on Wikipedia with Nicholson's name. For this reason, Roof may be his most notable case. If not, I am open to suggestions about where to retarget the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, I found two articles about Nicholson personally, and a bunch more (out of which I picked three) non-trivially discussing the legal principles behind a ruling he made (as opposed to discussing an accused while trivially mentioning that Nicholson presided over a trial). See box below for a draft article. I haven't included anything about the Dylann Roof case yet. Dunno if it's enough for WP:N. Comments? 58.176.246.42 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

Julius Carnes "Buddy" Nicholson, Jr. (born September 30, 1942) is a South Carolina Circuit Court judge.

Career

Nicholson started his legal career as Assistant Solicitor for Orangeburg County, South Carolina. From 1973 to 1974 he served in that position full-time, while from 1974 to 1976 he reduced his hours to part-time while also working in private practice. In 1976 he was elected a member of the County Council for Orangeburg County, in which position he continued until 1982. From 1983 to 1984 he was Assistant Solicitor for Greenville County. He then returned to private practice at Epps and Krause, where he became a partner in 1986. He was elected as a circuit court judge in 1999.[1] He retired officially in 2009; however, after retirement, he continued to work for the court system as a part-time circuit judge. He stated in a newspaper interview at the time, "I am 66. It's time to slow down. But I don't think you can go from doing this full-time to suddenly just stopping altogether."[2]

Major cases and rulings

One widely-noted case of Nicholson's was his October 2014 ruling in State v. Jones, in which a woman was charged with the murder of her boyfriend. In November 2012, the couple had a dispute at their shared residence; when Jones attempted to leave, her boyfriend punched her and grabbed her by the hair, and she stabbed him. In a pre-trial immunity hearing, Nicholson ruled that the state's "stand-your-ground law", the Protection of Property and Persons Act, gave Jones the right to kill her boyfriend. The law protects the actions of person who uses deadly force and "who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be"; prosecutors had argued that the phrase "another place" should not include a home in which the attacker resided, but Nicholson disagreed, stating in his ruling that prosecutors' reading of the law would create a "nonsensical result" in which a person could defend him- or herself against an intimate partner's attack outside of the home but not within it.[3]

Prosecutors criticized Nicholson's ruling and indicated their intent to appeal, as it also affected two other outstanding cases.[3] Amanda Marcotte, writing in Slate, praised the ruling, stating that while she found stand-your-ground laws to be problematic, "if a state insists on having them, they should be applied evenly and fairly".[4] However, a Salon column by Jenny Kutner disagreed with Nicholson's reading of the law, noting that the "presumption of fear" required for a use of deadly force to be found lawful did not apply within the home; Kutner stated that Jones' case instead demonstrated the need for South Carolina to pass new laws which protected survivors of domestic violence.[5]

Personal life

Nicholson was born in Birmingham, Alabama to parents Francis E. and Julius Carnes Nicholson.[1] He grew up in Camden, South Carolina.[2] After attending The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina, he entered the United States Air Force, where he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel.[6] After four years in the Air Force, he went on to the University of South Carolina School of Law.[2]

Nicholson has four children and nine grandchildren.[1] His son Julius Carnes Nicholson III is a lawyer with the Office of the South Carolina Attorney General.[7]

References
  1. ^ a b c "Judge J. C. Nicholson, Jr". South Carolina Judicial Department. Archived from the original on August 24, 2014. Retrieved July 30, 2015.
  2. ^ a b c Smith-Miles, Charmaine (February 9, 2009). "Time on the bench: Judge J.C. 'Buddy' Nicholson to retire in July". Independent Mail. Retrieved July 30, 2015.
  3. ^ a b Knapp, Andrew (October 12, 2014). "Charleston prosecutors challenge use of 'stand your ground' law in domestic disputes at home". The Post and Courier.
  4. ^ Marcotte, Amanda (October 15, 2014). "South Carolina Says 'Stand Your Ground' Law Doesn't Apply to Abused Women". Slate XX Factor. Retrieved July 30, 2015.
  5. ^ Kutner, Jenny (October 15, 2014). "Stand whose ground? How a criminal loophole gives domestic abusers all the rights". Salon. Retrieved July 30, 2015.
  6. ^ Battles, Bess (December 8, 2008). "Direct Examination: Q & A interview with Judge Buddy Nicholson". South Carolina Lawyers Weekl. Retrieved July 30, 2015.
  7. ^ "Engagements: Truitt-Nicholson". Independent Mail. March 22, 2008. Retrieved July 30, 2015.
  • Create article - according to WP:JUDGE a judge can be presumed notable if they preside over a "high court" (defined by WP:COURTS) which the South Carolina Circuit Court is not, by my understanding. However, this subject pay pass on WP:GNG grounds as 58.176 and their draft suggest. The article should live at J. C. Nicholson and it would be fine for the other redirects to point to it. Trout Jax 0677 for indecision in page titles and sloppy page moves leaving behind all of these redirects to be cleaned up. If it's determined that Nicholson is not notable, then the redirects should be deleted per WP:BLP1E - there's more to Nicholson's career than distilling it down to one court case, and it's not right for us to do that. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also support creation of an article about the judge. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to article using the content in the collapse box above (nicely done). I'd suggest in future this would be better off done in the draft namespace and just referred to from here: but it's refreshing to see that someone suggesting an article be created actually suggests some content. Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 31 July 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.

Royal Infirmary[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 dabify. Technically set-index-ify. By restoring the previous version. --BDD (talk) 16:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect was formerly a disambiguation page that only contained partial title matches. As a redirect, it is not mentioned at its target article. Also, I don't think that Infirmary isn't a good retargeting option since it seems that this term doesn't refer to infirmaries. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore this revision and adjust so that it's a WP:SETINDEX rather than a dab page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as a Set Index Article as suggested by User:Ivanvector. Don't think they existed when I created this disambig article. Excuse the rant but... This is the reason so many people loose interest in editing. People insisting strict adherence to a set of rules, when the rules are in a constant state of flux. How many 5000+ word articles in the Wikipedia namespace is one expected to fully read to be able to make an informed comment? Seriously, we need disambig and set index articles? Is the difference that huge? I tried to read the definitions and the discussion behind them to make sure I fully understand them, but I'm losing the will to live. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 19:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator comment/vote: Restore as a WP:SIA per above for reasons that AlistairMcMillan just stated. In a nutshell, good faith editors are a good thing to come by, and as a SIA, I could see the page working. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 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.

Valetudinaria[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) 16:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hospitals aren't exclusively tied to Spanish. Steel1943 (talk) 18:42, 29 July 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.

S0s[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 Lenticular galaxy. --BDD (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not mentioned at the Steven Spielberg article. This seems to be fairly ambiguous, but I'm not seeing any obvious retarget options. -- Tavix (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I slightly prefer my retarget, only because I think galaxies are the only thing listed at the dab which are likely to be referred to in plural form. I'm not opposed to targeting the disambiguation page, though. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:03, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per Ivanvector. However, a hatnote to S0 won't hurt. --Lenticel (talk) 01:21, 2 August 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.

Untitled film projects (concluded)[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) 16:23, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are all outdated redirects. The projects that these redirects refer to all have titles. They should be deleted as confusing because it might lead people to think they are referring to a separate, future untitled project. -- Tavix (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "untitled" redirects which don't point to works which are actually untitled are unhelpful and confusing to readers, and harmful to navigation. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Preauthorized comment[reply]
  • Delete Information that is either dated or will become dated. Entries starting with "Untitled" are generally not useful.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:23, 3 August 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.

Googolplexian[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 Names of large numbers#The googol family. It seems to me so obvious that the suggested redirect is better that I assume it is uncontroversial, and so I am making a WP:SNOW closure. In the unlikely event that anyone has a reason for disagreeing with the retargetting, the discussion can be re-opened. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This should be retargeted to names of large numbers where it is mentioned. It has no mention on googolplex. and the rationale for that action. 2602:306:3653:8A10:A5F9:6698:1C0B:9739 (talk) 16:18, 29 July 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.

Banana 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 Nomination withdrawn, with no other person than the nominator having advocated deletion. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any evidence that banana bean is a common name for Verbascum. Various sites scraping Wikipedia have picked up the term, but it seems to have originated here. There's nothing very "bananay" or "beany" about Verbascum. There doesn't appear to be any other topic which would be an appropriate target for this redirect Plantdrew (talk) 16:02, 29 July 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.

Gardia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 5#Gardia

New Gold Mountain[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 History of Chinese Australians#Gold Rush: 1853 to 1877. There's essentially no consensus here, but little appetite for keeping it as is. --BDD (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Name not mentioned at target. - TheChampionMan1234 05:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Correct endonym, particularly among the Chinese diaspora in Melbourne, albeit slightly obscure. The solution may be to mention it in the History section, or retarget to either History of Chinese Australians or Australian gold rushes. (Declaration of interest: I have family in Melbourne.) Deryck C. 08:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deryck Chan:: Interesting, having lived here for most of my life, I have occasionally heard of this term, but in no circumstances that refer to Melbourne (the city), so its probably better to retarget this to somewhere that the term IS mentioned. --- TheChampionMan1234 00:00, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a completely implausible redirect without context but could plausibly be the basis for its own article one day. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or possibly redirect elsewhere) Never heard the term used, nor can I find mention of Melbourne being refereed to as New Gold Mountain. Victorian goldfields (p. 8), or goldfields in Australia more generally ([1][2]), yep, but not Melbourne. ColonialGrid (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I created the redirect, so I'm obviously in favor of keep. This discussion and the delete votes above are the results of some white kids who have never heard of it and therefore think it should be entirely deleted from the encyclopedia. Aside from it being a perfectly accurate (albeit "Chinglishy") exonym (not endonym), their objections run headlong into WP:BIAS. Whatever admin wraps this up should keep it, pending some need to dab the page elsewhere. (And no, it never refers to the gold fields generally any more than Old Gold Mountain refers to the California gold fields instead of San Fran.) — LlywelynII 04:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:I will vote Keep if sources can be found. Rubbish computer 23:54, 29 July 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.

Max Read[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) 16:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Max Read resigned from Gawker. Don't think his name should redirect to his former occupation anymore. GamerPro64 02:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - he's still a creator (as indicated by the article) and we don't have a better target. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But the redirect goes to Gawker Media, not Gawker.com. One being the company and the other the website proper. GamerPro64 22:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right, the Gawker Media article lists him as a creator. Gawker mentions him several times within the article. I didn't notice until you mentioned it that they are separate articles. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't think that's a good idea. That's the sort of redirect that BLP1E is meant to protect individuals from. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:REDLINK if nothing else. He seems, maybe, to have possibility of a biography; given the divergence in current targets creating that biography seems to be the way to go. Mangoe (talk) 21:29, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 13:43, 29 July 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.

Stop beating my wife[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) 16:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The creator is insisting on this being a double redirect, to the point where he/she used {{nobots}} to try to exclude the normal double-redirect fixing bots. This probably isn't what we want here; I don't much care whether the result is deletion, fixing the double redirect, or creation of an article of some sort at the current target. Anomie⚔ 11:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Elvey, can you comment on this? Why would a double redirect be desirable here? I suppose the technical solution would be to soft redirect the desired title to the desired redirect. But how would this be helpful to readers? --BDD (talk) 13:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm interested in Elvey's rationale as well; they're currently on a block which will expire shortly. Regardless, the double redirect goes to loaded question; "stop beating my wife" is not one (it's not a question at all) so this redirect is misleading. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to throw in WP:POINT as well. Elvey seems to have created this just so that they could make this comment in an ANI thread which they were blocked for disrupting. This perhaps falls under WP:G2 or WP:G3. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I bold-ly removed the double redirect per WP:2R since double redirects don't work, and will be corrected anyways. Steel1943 (talk) 15:45, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. At first, I couldn't understand why this redirect even exists. After reading Ivanvector's explanation, it makes slightly more sense to me, but I don't think this is serving any useful purpose. "Should I stop beating my wife?" seems to be a minor meme according to my Google searches, but I see no reason to suspect that anyone would ever search for "stop beating my wife". It's not even a question, so it doesn't make sense to redirect it to loaded question. Deletion seems the only reasonable course of action. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. "Have you stopped beating your wife?" is a classic, canonical example of the loaded question, and one used illustratively in that article. But the exact phrasing "stop beating my wife" is an unlikely search target.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This appears to have a very obscure connection with its intended subject. Rubbish computer 23:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a question, it is a command -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Elvey posted this response on their talk page:
You ask for my rationale. I gave rationales in my edit summaries. You didn't see that, I guess. "As noted when I created it, this works better as a double redirect, as the destination page doesn't explain what the term means [yet]." If you don't agree with that, by all means undo my last edit or PROD it. Fine by me. I'm just trying to improve the encylopedia with that editing. However:
When did you stop beating your wife says:
"There's a famous joke question: "When did you stop beating your wife?" The structure of the question is funny — or disturbing — because" and "The classic example is "have you stopped beating your wife?" and "What's the best answer to the classic media training question: “When did you stop beating your wife". Plenty verifiable to RS.
Perhaps "When did you stop beating your wife?" should be listed as a commonly-used example at Loaded question. Agree? Then a normal redirect would make sense. Agree?
--Elvey(t•c) 15:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC) copied from User talk:Elvey by Ivanvector 🍁 (talk)[reply]
In response, I think that you may be right that it could be added as a common example. However, "stop beating your wife" would still have an obscure connection to the topic. Mostly I think that it's problematic because it's not a question. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that this is redirect is not "stop beating your wife" but "stop beating my wife", which if it were a sentential form would be an imperative. Si Trew (talk) 14:29, 31 July 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.

Powel Lord III[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) 16:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. Spelling error. Should be "Powell" with 2 L's.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I actually declined the speedy delete on those grounds. This redirect could actually help readers who made the same mistake in spelling. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 29 July 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.

Почетна страна[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. It looks like a new consensus is emerging for these types of redirects. --BDD (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These are all names of the Main Page in other languages, this is an unlikely search term on the ENGLISH Wikipedia as they would not get information in that language. - TheChampionMan1234 02:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete This is the English Wikipedia, the mainpage on all Wikipedias is easily accessibly by click on the Wikipedia logo, so this is no help in navigation. Further, these are very misleading since they do not lead to the mainpages of these languages. Nor are these even valid dictionary entries, since they lead to the main page portal, and not to the topic of a "main page" or "home page" -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete! I've been meaning to do this for a while, but I wanted to nominate the entire list instead of a few random ones like BDD mentions here. There really is no reason to have an "exception" for main page WP:FORREDs, the same rationale for deletion applies to them. I'd argue even more so because the "main page" isn't a search term, it just happens to be what the home page is called. They are easily a "novel or very obscure synonym for an article name" so WP:RFD#D8 applies here. I simply don't understand why someone would be at a random English article and decide that the best way to get to a different language's Wikipedia would be to type "main page" in that language. That doesn't even work, because they'll end up at the main English page and not the main page of that language, so its confusing (WP:RFD#D2). The way to do that would be to go to wikipedia.org and NOT en.wikipedia.org. -- Tavix (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RFOREIGN. Irrelevant languages for the subject. Rubbish computer 23:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete all' as above. To my surprise, though, they are actually all marked as {{R from other language}}, all but one with the correct language code. Si Trew (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:RFOREIGN and Tarvix.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:41, 3 August 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.

Downloading ebooks[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) 16:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTHOSTING - TheChampionMan1234 02:25, 29 July 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.

Arm bone[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 List of bones of the human skeleton#Arm. --BDD (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is ambiguous. There are multiple bones in an arm, and none of them are exclusively known as the "arm bone". Steel1943 (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm also okay with this target.--Lenticel (talk) 00:29, 30 July 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_July_29&oldid=1075158357"