Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 7
May 9 >

May 8[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 8, 2015.

NBC (fictional)[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) 13:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, as far as I know, NBC isn't fictional. This looks like it was created as a joke. Tavix | Talk  15:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete since the history of the redirect shows it to be a copy-paste copy of NBC, and all entries on NBC (disambiguation) seem to be non-fictional. Steel1943 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps refers to the NBC within works of fiction, such as Seinfeld and 30 Rock? Probably not encyclopedic, though. If it's a copy-paste (or was) then it's possible a history merge is required. Otherwise, delete. Ivanvector (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's about as much use as a snake in an arse-kicking competition. Delete. I did cast around but couldn't find anything better. Si Trew (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It could possibly go via CNBC, since most of their news seems to be fictional, but I think that would be WP:POV. Si Trew (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Template:Humor icon do you mean MSNBC? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:40, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly useless and not even accurate redirect. Elassint Hi 04:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above findings. --Lenticel (talk) 09:13, 15 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.

Flexible sanding tools[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) 13:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This looks overly promotional to me, and I don't think sandpaper is known as "flexible sanding tools." It was created by a WP:SPA, Flexicat Tools as a way to advertise their tools. Tavix | Talk  14:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (reserving !vote for more discussion): all sandpaper generally is flexible, and there are tools designed specifically for employing sandpaper in applications which require a flexible abrasion surface (as well as perfectly flat or at particular exact angles, and such) but I don't think any of this is particularly encyclopedic. I think that the redirect is harmless, though. Waiting for someone to convince me one way or the other on this one. Ivanvector (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm reserving judgment too, you would somehow expect this to bee WP:PROMO but it isn't. Sandpaper really isn't very flexible, at leat not the stuff I get from Poundland. Emery cloth is certainly more flexible, but that is not under discussion. Si Trew (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sandpaper isn't the only flexible sanding tool -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:51, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective, and not likely to be searched for on an encyclopedia. Elassint Hi 04:10, 12 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.

Team Fortress 3[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. This should probably be salted if created again without good reason. --BDD (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion per WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. There is not a single reliable source that indicates this video game is in development or will exist in the future. The1337gamer (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the game itself has spawned numerous internet memes and gags, isn't that notable enough? It's ok though if you think you should delete the article. Instant hits, not to bits. 15:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrkenjiex24 (talk • contribs)

This is a non-existent game, I doubt any coverage, meme-wise or not, would be significant. A restricted google search gives 16,300 non-useful hits, and zero reliable hits. There is no third-party coverage from reputable sources. --benlisquareT•C•E 11:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Memes mean nothing here. No serious confirmation of this game can be found. Elassint Hi 04:22, 12 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.

2016 French Open[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) 13:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too early, last French Open'sn't started yet. 333-blue 12:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation was in the edit summary, so I don't see the point in dirtying up this discussion. Si's closure violated both points in WP:BADNAC. He's not an admin so he can't close something as delete. He is also WP:INVOLVED in the discussion so it's just bad all the way around. Tavix | Talk  18:25, 13 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.

Utica greens[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 it is actually an article. I've moved the discussion to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Utica greens. (non-admin closure) Tavix | Talk  19:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creator made this Utica Greens page. Having made almost 100kb worth of edits on Utica, New York, I think it's safe to say this should redirect to Cuisine of the Mid-Atlantic United States#Dishes, which would be a prose list I suppose, or Endive or something. I just don't believe it should be an article. Buffaboy talk 04:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep article - I think there's enough here for an article, but the current one needs much work. I don't know what notability guideline to refer to for local cuisine, so I'm judging GNG by the diversity of search results, and the fact that Rachael Ray has published her own recipe for this dish. As a side note, this should probably be at AfD since an article was created. Ivanvector (talk) 08:15, 8 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_8&oldid=1138580658"