Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

May 17[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 17, 2015.

BC logging road etiquette[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 restore article per the withdraw statement below. If Tinton5 still thinks that the subject is not notable, I'll leave it up to them to bring it to AfD. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  22:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one will search for this term. Tinton5 (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not assuming bad faith here, but since this was just turned from an article to a redirect by you, earlier the same day, I think it would be better to restore the article and discuss it at AfD. --BDD (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and send to AfD per BDD. If this article is in fact "not notable or sourced", then it should be deleted there, not here. Tavix | Talk  15:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and send to AfD per above. Belchior90 (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article and send to AfD per BDD. --Lenticel (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw per above reasoning..I will restore article. Tinton5 (talk) 02:22, 21 May 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.

Putsung[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The result of the discussion was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  14:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated people, implausible search term Mosmof (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it's not implausible. There are many ways to romanize names, and "Putsung" is one way of rendering "Pu-tsung", as is "Pu Tsung" and "Pǔcōng", as well as "Pu-Cong", etc. However, this is a redirect from a given name to a single person. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawing - I meant to nominate a different redirect by the same user to the same target article. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmof (talk • contribs) 14:23, 18 May 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.

John Trice[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. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to video game minutiae, no inbound links. Mosmof (talk) 15:46, 17 May 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.

John, Paul, George 'n Ringo[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) 13:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually implausible search term. In the unlikely instance that this was searched for, the reader would still find the page they were looking for. Barely used redirect. JZCL 15:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I combined the above nominations together to reduce duplicated content 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep all. These don't cause any actual problem that calls for deletion. However, they are implausible; what reader out there wants to find John, Paul, George and Ringo without knowing that they are The Beatles? 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my opinion to weak delete in view of the information below that these are sockpuppet creations. I still don't see them as great candidates for deletion, but they aren't much use, either. Deleting them due to sckpuppetry is fine. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, because I disagree with the anon's statement that there isn't anything that calls for deletion. WP:RFD#D8 says that novel and obscure redirects should be deleted because they are unlikely to be useful. This is the case here. We have, what, eight variations to the band's members using just the letter n? What if we switched the order of the members? Introduced "&", "and", etc.? There are virtually thousands of combinations that could be used and these are probably on the more unlikely side of the spectrum. Tavix | Talk  02:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"John, Paul, George and Ringo" is the standard conventional order for the members of The Beatles. It is much more likely as a search term than any other ordering, and I would most likely oppose multiple redirects that used a different order. These few seem fine to me. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll strike it then. It's a really minor part to my argument but people seem to be getting hung up on it. Tavix | Talk  16:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep seems to be the way the are ordered. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's primarily the order that is the problem: i.e. I have no problem with John, Paul, George and Ringo redirecting to the Beatles. It's just that who in their right mind is going to type any of the above? Why would they type 'n, n' or 'n' instead of and? I say implausible. JZCL 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Even "redirects are cheap" shouldn't cover implausible and unnecessary. FWIW, these redirects (and many like them) are speediable as the creation of a sockpuppet. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:04, 18 May 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_May_17&oldid=1138580580"