Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 11[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 11, 2016.

Wikipedia:QXZ[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 19#Wikipedia:QXZ

Municipal Electricity Authority[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 September 19#Municipal Electricity Authority

Thomas Aquinas Dumb Ox[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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was started as a duplicate article, and its title strikes me as a very unlikely search term. (I noticed it as a suggestion in the search box, and wonder how many other users have done so.) Throwing a nickname after a name like this is just a rather novel or obscure way of referring to a person. BDD (talk) 15:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - The labeling of the religious figure as a "dumb ox" is a long-standing historical particular that's recieved notable commentary. There's a major book by the title of Saint Thomas Aquinas: The Dumb Ox. However, I don't think that this redirect is really helpful. It's too clunky. As well, using something like a book title to go to a person's page is a pattern that I don't want us to fall into. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:47, 12 September 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.

The Guy[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 keep and hatnote. -- Tavix (talk) 16:52, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the current target is optimal. Is WP:THE sufficient for disambiguating this from other topics at Guy? SSTflyer 14:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are two articles that link to it, and it gets an average of 14 hits a day over the last year, so it's in use. In fact, it probably should be tagged as {{R with possibilities}}. I also added the section title to the target; nominations need to show the entire link. — Gorthian (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As the mascot for the band, this redirect should be kept, with hatnote {{redirect}}. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:51, 12 September 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.

Dstrbd[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence this commonly refers to the band. SSTflyer 14:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Searching the web comes up with user names in various venues; on Wikipedia, there's nothing at all. Hits are very sparse over the last year except for a couple weeks in July, when for some reason there was an average of 22 hits/day. :-O — Gorthian (talk) 23:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just seems like a bit of random gibberish. No real connection to the group. This should just be trashed. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not an official abbreviation for the group. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Retarget to Disturbed as a plausible misspelling. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a plausible mispelling unless your keyboard has no vowels on it. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:26, 14 September 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.

Dtrbd[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence this commonly refers to the band. SSTflyer 14:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Web searches turn up lots of Dell computers with this acronym attached. Wikipedia doesn't mention it anywhere at all. It's got the same hit pattern as Dstrbd, nominated above: very sparse except for a flurry of hits over a couple weeks in July. Either one could mean "distributed" or "deturbated" or who knows what. Even if it was clear that Dtrbd = Disturbed, it wouldn't necessarily mean the band. — Gorthian (talk) 23:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non sensical. seems necessary to be deleted. BlackAmerican (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - Retarget to Disturbed as a plausible misspelling. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary. No one would construe this as to the intended meaning. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:28, 14 September 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.

Untitled tenth Metallica studio album[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) 18:31, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think such situations are usually deleted, right? There are no incoming links in article space. SSTflyer 14:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's a {{R from page move}}, which we usually keep. Plus, it's still getting about 18 hits a day and, although that's considerably down from the ~1200/day it was getting till the title was announced, it shows that it's still being used. — Gorthian (talk) 23:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as misleading. This album has a name, so it's clearly not "untitled". -- Tavix (talk) 02:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Tavix completely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Tavix almost completely, but not so much as to seem unoriginal or unthinking. It's got a title, so the use of the redirect doesn't matter, because the redirect is no longer useful or appropriate. Statistics alone are not going to address qualitative issues. I could redirect "fat bastard" to well, anybody I wanted, and people might use it simply because it says "fat bastard" and people like puerile stuff like that. That doesn't mean it's qualitatively appropriate to keep it. MSJapan (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Remember that a lot of the hits come from web searches, not Wikipedia itself; if someone were looking for the name, typing "tenth Metallica album" would probably hit it. I'd say wait a few months to delete it. It's only been a couple of weeks since the title was announced. And that title? Not the easiest thing to type correctly. — Gorthian (talk) 06:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Search engines also index the content of pages; deleting the redirect won't hurt them, since the term appears in the article's first sentence anyway. However, it may break direct incoming links. (See WP:EXTERNALROT.) --Paul_012 (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gorthian. Deletion would probably break incoming links, and redirects are cheap anyway. MSJapan's comparison to creating new random/offensive redirects isn't relevant to this case, which is the result of a move. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTALHAMMER and that it is now titled. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gorthian. This is still getting a lot of hits a day, showing that there are external links that point to this name, which was formerly the name of the article. Until that page count goes way down from 18/day, I wouldn't support deletion. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:53, 18 September 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.

1908 Colorado Silver and Gold football team[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. A stub has been created over the redirect, so it's no longer within the jurisdiction of RFD. -- Tavix (talk) 02:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no reason to create a redirect specifically for the year 1908, in the redirect article there is no indication that the year 1908 was extraordinarily special in the history of the team. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Looked at the article, and there's literally nothing pertinent in it - there's actually a sizable history gap that includes this year, so it really serves no purpose. MSJapan (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this is just the tip of the iceberg. The same user has created dozens of similar redirects and matching categories; see the bottom of this page. It seems clear there's a larger purpose to all this; I wonder what it is, and whether it's been discussed. @UW Dawgs: Can you let us know what's going on? — Gorthian (talk) 03:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:REDLINK to encourage proper season articles to develop. Season articles of this type are notable. Frankly, it's ridiculous that these redirects are being created. If someone searches this, they are going to want to know what happened with the team that season, not a general overview of the team that has either no or little information about the team that year. -- Tavix (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
full list -- Tavix (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been expanded into a stub, and User:UW Dawgs appears to be in the process of expanding the rest of the redirects he created as well. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Jweiss says, WP:CFB is in the midst of an ongoing campaign to have an article for every season of all top-tier college football programs. Why these redirects were created before the articles themselves, I'm not entirely sure, but each of these redirects will most likely be expanded into actual articles within the next week. Lizard (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The discussion appears to have initially been warranted. However, this particular page has now been turned into stub article with one reliable source, rather than a redirect. Cbl62 (talk) 02:19, 15 September 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.

T-apin[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.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

T-apin is an implausible redirect that should be deleted. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I could see maybe people typing this in, someplace in the world sometime, but I agree that it's implausible. I'd get rid of the redirect as well. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 03:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it also messes with results for Tapin. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I expected this to be a redirect from the name of a Vulcan, not a typo. Thryduulf (talk) 02:02, 18 September 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_September_11&oldid=1138581323"