Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 3

January 3

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on January 3, 2013

Vescovio

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. I've also added {{R from other name}} to the redirect. non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect appears to be incorrectly placed. Its link provided does not relate to this title, and could perhaps be vandalism. I will propose deletion for now based on my observations. TBrandley (what's up) 19:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the article Forum Novum itself, Vescovio is an alternative name of this ancient Roman city. Today, in Roman Catholicism both names a used to refer to a titular diocese (see here). Gugganij (talk) 19:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as a good {{R from other name}}. Ideally it would be added to the lead and/or bolded but this is not essential. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added the alternative name to the lead. Gugganij (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is now even less reason not to keep the redirect, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2013 (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 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. Non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, All links no seemingly updated. Only links I could find were in a list of Template Redirects to be fixed. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What needs fixing about this? It doesn't appear to be doing any harm. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't have to be doing harm to be deleted. It's simply unused and useless. This is nothing like a redir such as Shakespear that people who aren't spelling geniuses genuinely use. If it were kept, it would need to be hyphenated anyway, per basic English grammar rules. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't have to be doing harm to be deleted, but you still need to show what benefit deletion will bring and if it's not doing any harm, I don't see what those can be. "unused" is not a reason to delete a redirect, particularly one from a logical name like this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:02, 7 January 2013 (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.

LiquiTech Inc

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. Tikiwont (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These redirects should be deleted. Presumably LiquiTech and TarnPure are companies that are involved in selling/using copper-silver ionization (the target of the redirects) but nothing is said about these companies at the targeted article. Wikipedia is not a business directory. These redirects are useless, nothing links through them. Peacock (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete as NN. No need to redirect to generic product instead of brand. -- Alexf(talk) 16:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • NN does not apply to redirects. Rich Farmbrough, 17:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
      • It does not even apply to articles. The closest we have is A7 but that calls for not having a credible claim of importance which is a lower bar than notability.--70.49.80.250 (talk) 21:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • (Yes - I meant even apart from speedy.) Rich Farmbrough, 23:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak delete. If we had an article about either of these companies (I have no opinion on whether they are sufficiently notable), then redirects from other forms of their name would be very useful. In the absence of any mention of them in the target article, and no obvious other place to point them (we don't have a list of companies these firms appear in for example) then deletion is probably best. Thryduulf (talk) 20:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Completely agree with Thryduulf except that they have been around since 2009. Rich Farmbrough, 23:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • This doesn't make sense. If you completely agree with someone who is arguing for deletion, why say "keep"? Peacock (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned at target. WP:REDLINK if these companies are notable, articles should be created, so these should be redlinks. WP:ADVERTISING being unmentioned seems to advertise that these companies provide this product. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not mentioned at target. Siuenti (talk) 12:17, 12 January 2013 (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.

John Lục

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. Tikiwont (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Lục is this guy. I don't know if he is notable enough for an article, but his name should not redirect to his ethnicity, so I propose deletion.

  • Delete unless someone plans to create and article in the next few days there is no reason for any of these redirects. Virtually everyone who types in one of the redirects in question would be looking for information about a person not an ethnicity.--70.49.80.250 (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmentioned at target. WP:REDLINK, if this person is notable, this should be a redlink. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2013 (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.

GISHWHES

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 keep. Nom withdraws request. Favonian (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect to Misha Collins was created with the rationale "The event is run by him". There is no evidence for this claim, and the redirect should be deleted. GISHWHES is some sort of internet "scavenger hunt" which caused the Jared Padalecki article to be protected after it had been vandalized repeatedly with strange claims about Collins and Padalecki. Favonian (talk) 12:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Here you go:
  • "because in his current downtime, the actor is organizing the second staging of GISHWHES"Huffington Post.
  • Misha Collins has put a new twist on this game with his international scavenger hunt, GISHWHES." WIRED
CorporateM (Talk) 15:03, 3 January 2013 (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.

.EN

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. Is not a domain and not discussed at target or anywhere else here. Tikiwont (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of .en in Proposed top-level domain, nor elsewhere on the Internet; nor would it be consistent with the policy that two-letter codes are reserved for ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country codes, and EN is unassigned. Chris Morgan (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as neither harmful nor new. Rich Farmbrough, 23:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as unlisted at target -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not only doesn't appear in target, is proven counterfactual nonsense. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 12:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed from RfD to an article, therefore outside your jurisdiction. Intent is to take to CSD and in theory should get past that, but knowing it probably won't, will have to go AfD. Si Trew (talk) 00:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G7. Patently I am the only author of the content, it is not a move redirect, and nobody else has contributed to its content nor on its talk pages. So obviously G7. I can think of a lot of other redirects that can be turned into articles in good faith (my good faith being I want them to be deleted) and immediately then go G7... Si Trew (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original redirect creator is a contributor (now blocked), not a valid use of G7. GB fan 01:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what way not a valid use of G7? I created the article in good faith, my faith being that it will be deleted. I read G7 and I seem to have done everything right. What meaning do you have for "valid"? If you mean, it's a good way to subvert the rules, then, as Dickens has it "if the law says that, the law is an ass, a idiot". Patently it is a subversion of the rules. I have left a talk on the page saying so and referring back to this. But if you could elaborate on why it is not "valid", that would help. (If it's any consolation, I have taken several articles from RfD, and WP:PNT, from stubs or redirects to being proper articles on their own feet, but I admit I have not been very active lately.) Si Trew (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are not the only significant editor on the page, it was also significantly edited by the creator of the redirect. GB fan 01:32, 11 January 2013 (UTC)l[reply]
Creating a redirect is not a significant edit. Si Trew (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a page is a significant contribution to any page. Without that contribution, the page would not exist. GB fan 02:02, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, WT:CSD#G7 - Question. GB fan 14:04, 11 January 2013 (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.

Multi Chevrolet

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. Spam by COI user on a car dealership. No need to redirect to car brand. Alexf(talk) 16:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFD#DELETE #4 spam. It's a car dealership in New Jersey. Mkdwtalk 10:00, 3 January 2013 (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.

Template:Boston Legal

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 to delete redirect. The named user page that is affected by this redirect has been fixed and the template restored. If unused it should be sent to Tfd. Tikiwont (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC), amended --Tikiwont (talk) 08:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template not used in article space. Template's use on user pages is causing polluted categories GoingBatty (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore to a template (rather than transcluding a list) and then send to TfD if desired. Redirecting pages in the template namespace to articles is rarely helpful as the latter are not formatted with the intention of transclusion (nor should they be). Thryduulf (talk) 06:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • TfD as unused, agree with User:Thryduulf. I don't understand the pollution of the Category namespace; the only cat currently is Category:Redirects for discussion. I would hope people could type "List of Boston Legal characters" instead of "#SUBST:Boston Legal" (and have to learn about SUBST to do so), so I don't see why anyone would have created it for transclusion. Si Trew (talk) 02:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wasn't clear above. Because of this incorrect redirect, User:Blankuser/Carl_Sack was included in Category:Boston Legal characters. GoingBatty (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2013 (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.

Apple Turnover (Kings Dominion)

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. I've also added {{R from merge}}. Non-admin closure. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its not notable and its a enterprise . it can be seen in the former kings dominion section. Enterprises and Looping Starships are not notable because they are the same and they are mass produced. Starship9000 (talk) 00:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apple Turnover (Kings Dominion). The results of that discussion was to merge the content into Kings Dominion. This is currently a redirect to that article after the merge. GB fan 01:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for attribution purposes and as standard {{R from merge}}, but refine target to the relevant section of the target article. Starship9000 many repeated attempts to get this page deleted against consensus mean that reliable usage figures for the redirect do not exist, but the title is a logical search term for content we have so I'm not seeing any reason for deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - redirect makes sense, and it makes no sense to redlink it to encourage article creation, since there probably isn't a worthwhile article to write. WilyD 10:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ride was involved in the movie "Roller Coaster" This ride was more notable than it's other counterparts, in addition to it being of the rarer Anton Schwarzkopf model — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julser1 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ride is a HUSS Enterprise. Enterprise and Looping Starship`s are not notable because they are the same and also it is mass produced so that makes it not notable. It can be seen on the Former Kings Dominion attractions of Kings Dominion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starship9000 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a good reason not to have an article, but its presence on another article is a good reason to keep the redirect. Also I've struck your recommendation to delete, as this is already implied by your nomination. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete= it is mass produced --Starship9000 (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a reason to delete this redirect. Also, I struck your delete comment since you have already made your recommendation. GB fan 01:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any reason why this amusement ride be deleted? --Starship9000 (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Starship, you are wrong, there were multiple manufacturers of this ride, and this was a rare Schwarzkopf model that was actually in a movie, Roller Coaster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.212.28.161 (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2013 (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/2013_January_3&oldid=1138578908"