Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 5[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 5, 2015.

Atlanta (version 2)[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 speedy delete as WP:CSD#G6, by User:Mackensen. —Keφr 05:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, should be deleted JMHamo (talk) 23:45, 5 September 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.

But[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. I'll add a link to Conjunction (grammar) to the dab, however, since we do have encyclopedic discussion of the English word. --BDD (talk) 13:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this grammatical conjunction is the only one that redirects to Conjunction (grammar), I do not see this target being helpful. In conclusion, retarget to BUT; there is currently a link there referring the reader to wikt:but. Steel1943 (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, it is not a conjuction but a disjunction. Si Trew (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The conjunction article covers "but". -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 04:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is not a conjunction but a disjunction. WP:NOTDIC, WP:RFD#D2 confusing. Si Trew (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "but" is covered in the destination article. You will need to rewrite the article to remove it. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People are looking for information about the word, and conjuction discusses it (and but is too a conjunction). This takes people to exactly what they're looking for. Possibly target to section. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:06, 8 September 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.

Whee[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 16#Whee

Crimenetly[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 16#Crimenetly

Gah![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) 13:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is an example of an interjection, but the only interjection is not "gah". Probably best to delete this redirect; retargeting to the disambiguation page is questionable since no entries on the page utilize an exclamation point. Steel1943 (talk) 20:01, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom: also not at Wiktionary. Rubbish computer 21:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Gah -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A re-target change wouldn't be a bad idea, but the exclamation point means that it's really not likely that someone is looking for the other uses of the term. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:45, 8 September 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.

슈주피디아[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) 13:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sujupedia is not mentioned at the target. Gorobay (talk) 01:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. Discussion of Sujupedia was removed from the target in July 2008 and never re-inserted. No reliable sources discuss Sujupedia either [1] and so there's no place for it in Wikipedia. 58.176.246.42 (talk) 04:12, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --Rubbish computer 17:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per anon's findings --Lenticel (talk) 00:23, 8 September 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.

The Ideal School of Manhattan[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) 13:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of subject on the target page. The subject appears to be a school, which is expanding into a high school and thus could have its own article. Better as a red link. Ravendrop 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - If this is asserting the opinion that the school is the ideal school, then there are WP:NPOV issues, and it should be deleted; if the school teaches Idealism, and it can be sourced as being called that, it may be reasonable to keep it.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, at least platonically, an ideal school would exist only in Heaven and not on terra firma or even an island such as Manhattan. >s>WP:RFD#D2Don't !vote twice confusing. We do have Ideal school → Ideal School and College, which in its WP:FIRSTSENTENCE calls it not that but "Ideal School & College", to which Ideal School & College also redirects.
But we don't have Ideal School, and if anything I would have thought it would be anout ideas in philosophy. Thinking about that, Aristotle and Plato and perhaps Socrates could be thought of as coming from the "ideal school of philosophy", as opposed to e.g. pragmatism or existentialism. An example of Indian English, I think, and perhaps WP:PROMO. Si Trew (talk) 05:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:RFD#D2 confusing, not mentioned at target, New York schools have no "idea". Si Trew (talk) 05:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We have neither Ideal School of Manhattan nor Manhattan Ideal School, I struck me duplicate !vote, sorry about that. Si Trew (talk) 05:28, 5 September 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_September_5&oldid=1037881128"