Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 3, 2015.

S.p.A.[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 12#S.p.A.

Harijs Poters[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 per clear consensus. Just Chilling (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RFOREIGN. Harry Potter has no affinity with Latvian. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete oer WP:RFOREIGN, there's an article at lv:Harijs_Poters, so not needed here, and no particular affinity to Latvian. If only she could write English it would be a start. Si Trew (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unambiguously directs readers to the article they're looking for; no reason has been suggested for deletion (nor can I imagine any). WilyD 19:59, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think a reader searching for this term would be looking for particular information on Harry Potter in Latvia? --BDD (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The essay in question that is quoted simply reiterates what is clearly stated in the eight section of WP:RFD#DELETE and that section is clearly titled reasons to delete and I see no evidence that it is a recent addition. The suggestion that someone referencing what is clearly stated in that section as not giving a reason makes no sense and will likely be ignored for obvious reasons,--67.68.29.99 (talk) 01:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think a reason has been suggested, namely WP:RFOREIGN. That is an essay, sure, and not a policy, but I think it has consensus. User:WilyD I am not the only one who dislikes these casual toss-offs of "no reason has been suggested" when patently a reason has been suggested. "I disagree" would perhaps be more WP:CIVIL, since BDD and even me put a lot of thought into it, the job of a WP:WIKIGNOME, in an attempt to make it better. I don't have a single original thought in my head, so I just translate and do indexing and stuff like that, and that is my contribution to this wonderful project. I've said so, before, and BDD (I think) has said so. BDD don't always agree with me, neither Tavix nor Lenticel nor anyone else, but that is how we get WP:CONSENSUS. Probably nine times out of ten I throw out very odd suggestions that are politely declined, and the tenth in ten is "nice catch". I don't think that's a bad ratio. Si Trew (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete native English-language topic, from fiction written in English. No affinity for any language other than English. -- 70.51.202.183 (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FORRED besides, if someone did search for this term, they'd probably be seeking information about Harry Potter in Latvia, which we don't have. --BDD (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BDD: If they were looking for specific information about Harry Potter in Latvia, we actually do have a little bit of information over at Harry Potter in translation. Maybe we could retarget to that entry? Tavix | Talk  14:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Titles, translators, and publishers? Well, it's not nothing, but I would expect readers to know at least some of that already. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We have a Latvian WP, and it serves for the purpose. The current practice on removing redirects from non-english names has I think pretty general consensus. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 10 June 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.

Kieran Wallace[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. See my comments below. --BDD (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kieran Wallace (footballer) is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC JMHamo (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. I find it hard to see how a third division footballer could take precedent over a figure at the centre of a political scandal involving a billionaire businessman and his country's courts, banks, parliament and media. In any event (and in the spirit of WP:BOLD), I moved it to the common disambiguation 'footballer' thus preserving the page history. This seemed the simplest move yet the nominator instantly undid it, came here and then, to top it all off, had the cheek to accuse me on my talk page of a "cut-and-paste move" while attempting to discredit me with a notice telling me what I could and could not do when my account was more than four days old (which it certainly is). --Inother (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Inother: I understand you are upset. But, what should you like us to do with it? You haven't really said. The default here at RfD is (and I dislike that default) for it to be deleted if nobody else says otherwise, and you've not said otherwise. But I doubt a delete of it is what you want. Si Trew (talk) 15:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not upset. I moved the footballer to the common disambiguation 'footballer' thus preserving the history. I am wondering why the nominator then came here to have the redirect deleted and why the same nominator wrongly accused me of a "copy-and-paste move", an accusation which could only have been in bad faith. I find it hard to see how all that could been an accident, how, as I have said, a third division footballer could take precedent over a figure at the centre of a political scandal involving a billionaire businessman and his country's courts, banks, parliament and media, and why the nominator needs to have that redirect deleted. --Inother (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based on all that I've said and the nominator's actions it is keep. --Inother (talk) 16:01, 3 June 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.

Memory space (computational resource)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 10#Memory space (computational resource)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_3&oldid=1138580372"