Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 12[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 12, 2016.

嘉慶帝[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The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn. Thryduulf (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:FORRED JMHamo (talk) 19:34, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. If you read the guideline you referenced, it instructs that we should only delete redirects that are from a language that has no affinity to the target. This term is mentioned and used in the article, so it's a perfectly cromulent redirect. -- Tavix (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It also says "This is the English Wikipedia, and we serve English speakers. Having a large number of foreign language redirects presents problems for both our readers and editors." JMHamo (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're taking that quote out of context. It's meant to set up the next paragraph (the Dutch example) to explain why foreign redirects with no affinity to that language present a problem. Since the nominated redirect is used in the article, that problem doesn't exist because we can check the redirect against what is used in the article. I can see where you're coming from though so I've added a qualifier to that sentence to mitigate confusion in the future. -- Tavix (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tavix. "The major exception is for [foreign language] redirects where the language of the redirect relates strongly to the content of the target", "... such [as] redirects [that are] discussed at their target page" per WP:RFD/CO#Foreign languages.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 22:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since this was his name in his native language. Curro2 (talk) 22:11, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the nominator clearly missed the first line stating that we don't keep foreign language redirects not related to the subject meaning thus related redirects can be kept.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep original language name; clearly subjects should be searchable by the original language name, if you don't know the correct romanization, or you're doing a cut-and-paste search. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2016 (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.

Energy Vampire (Robot Vampire)[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. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While it appears the creator was trying to describe a type of psychic vampire, it doesn't appear to have any notability. Since there's a strange disambiguation, this doesn't appear to be a plausible search term anywhere either. -- Tavix (talk) 03:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete. If we had any coverage of robotic energy vampires, I suspect it would be at the Psychic vampire article and I would argue for retargetting this there. However, neither that article nor any others that I can find have any coverage of robot vampires of any kind, so there is nowhere suitable to point this whether it is a useful search term or not. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not mentioned in article, and I cannot imagine anyone searching for this. sst✈ 14:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the odd disambiguation. "Robot Vampire" is nothing, but Robo Vampire is a 1988 film featuring what looks like a Robocop-zombie. We don't have an article about it although is mentioned very briefly at List of zombie short films and undead-related projects. According to the article, it has no zombies. This has been a disappointing tangent. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2016 (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/2016_January_12&oldid=1037883222"