Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 4[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on July 4, 2018.

User:Hop on Bananas/piehole[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. Deryck C. 10:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless page, we already have Pie hole which has a wiktionary link. Tinton5 (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Tesla Mortors[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) 16:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was created back in 2007 and clearly, it's a misspelled one. There's no such thing called "Tesla Mortors" aside from the 672 Google search results ("Tesla Mortors") that are most likely to be spelled incorrectly as well.

I'm aware of Category:Redirects from misspellings but this gives rise to another issue: currently Tesla Mortors is redirected to Commodity cell, which makes just a little sense. Options might be either redirecting it to Tesla, Inc. (if there's a need to - I don't know how often "Motors" could be misspelled as "Mortors") or delete it right away. Thank you.  Kou Dou 14:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Re-target to Tesla Inc. Tesla Mortors seems a plausible misspelling of Tesla Motors, the old name for Tesla. --Danski454 (talk) 17:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this shows up on search before Tesla Motors so may be confusing. WP:RFD#DELETE item #2 "causes confusion" AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to pollution of auto-complete and possible confusion. Deryck C. 10:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wiki Project Med Foundation[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2018 July 12#Wiki Project Med Foundation

Wirral Independent Network[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. Deryck C. 10:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable organisation not mentioned in target. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 01:53, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Champion: The Wirral Independent Network was a group of Independent politicians-that is why it redirects to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianbbrian (talk • contribs) 08:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a strong reason for an article about a specific group of independent politicians to redirect to a general concept article that doesn't mention them. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 03:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I don't see this organization getting traction in news sources. Maybe it could go to Metropolitan Borough of Wirral but I don't see any mention of any organized Network. I thought this might have been the title of a news website? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:00, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Chile 2030 FIFA World Cup bid[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. Deryck C. 10:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON and WP:BALL Hhkohh (talk) 00:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

England 2030 FIFA World Cup bid[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 no consensus. Deryck C. 10:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BALL, see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom 2030 FIFA World Cup bid Hhkohh (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 00:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - TOOSOON. GiantSnowman 08:29, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, England's potential bid is discussed and sourced at the target. -- Tavix (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: We do not know whether United Kingdom or England bid? Hhkohh (talk) 08:30, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From the article: English FA vice chairman David Gill has proposed that his country could potentially bid for 2030, provided that the bidding process is made more transparent.[9] Journalist Ben Rumsby wrote, "England is one of few countries that could stage even a 48-nation event in its entirety, while Football Association chief executive Martin Glenn made it clear earlier this year bidding for 2030 was an option."[2] In June 2017, UEFA stated that "it would support a pan-British bid for 2030 or even a single bid from England."[10] Moreover, a possible United Kingdom bid for 2030 was also backed by the German Football Association.[11] That is plenty of information, so the target is helpful for someone searching for information on the bid. -- Tavix (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tavix: I understand what you mean but possible may fail WP:BALL and you can see bid sectionHhkohh (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's your point? We have information on the topic at the target, which is all we require for redirects. -- Tavix (talk) 13:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tavix So I am curious about why did you not create a redirect for UK. I do not see they decide England or UK to bid Hhkohh (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issues with a UK redirect should someone decide to create one. -- Tavix (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This doesn't need a separate article or redirect until they're like a finalist. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Information on it is mentioned at the article. It's not about whether it "needs" a redirect, the standards are much lower than for articles. It's a plausible search term, and that's enough. Smartyllama (talk) 15:51, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: Did you read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Kingdom 2030 FIFA World Cup bid? Hhkohh (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and the standards for redirects are lower than the standards for articles. I suggest you read WP:ATD. Smartyllama (talk) 16:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hhkohh (talk) 16:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Smartyllama: But do you know why they voted delete instead of redirect in AfD? Hhkohh (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because nobody ever brought up the possibility of a redirect? Smartyllama (talk) 16:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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/2018_July_4&oldid=1036307706"