Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 9[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 9, 2014.

Pokpok[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 to Pok Pok. --BDD (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of this Tagalog term in the target article. (An article at this title had been PRODded as being just a dictionary definition, but was turned into a redirect). PamD 21:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Prostitution isn't necessarily only a Filipino thing. Besides, the term is closer to "slut" than "prostitute".--Lenticel (talk) 00:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question — Wait, does the term not even mean prostitution? The only real link I can find is here on Urban Dictionary (and of questionable veracity). If it means "slut" it might better be redirected there although the term is not mentioned there either. It's hard to see a strong argrument for keeping the redirect but it's certainly wrong to keep it pointed to an article that doesn't even correspond to the terms meaning. —mako๛ 01:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's the wiktionary entry. It's more of a pejorative. It might not be a good idea to retarget it to slut since as you said, it's not mentioned there. BTW, what if we Retarget it to Pok Pok instead as a plausible misspelling? --Lenticel (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great idea! I actually found quite a bit on Pok Pok while googling for the term but I just sort of assumed that even a well known Thai restaurant in Portland, Oregon wouldn't have a Wikipedia article. Retargeting to Pok Pok is a fantastic suggestion. —mako๛ 06:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)6[reply]
Well that's lovely if you live in Portland, Oregon. I am only 10 time zones away. Nice for you to point it out, since it seems blatant WP:PROMO and I am inclined to take it WP:AFD]. Si Trew (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urban Dictionary is not RS; neither is Wiktionary as that is just navel gazing (Wikipedia looking at itself). Puk puk is red, alas. Pop pop as my dialect is a small motorbike but Pop-Pop is a computer game. I feel it should go to Auto rickshaw or something, rather than its current target. I don't go to prostitutes, I haven't the money after my wife has cleared me out for fixing the roof; I can't even afford it through cheap redirects (maybe I should hire a Tuk tuk, which redirects to Auto rickshaw). Si Trew (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The restaurant does have an article, and blatantly WP:PROMO; the references are restaurant reviews from the local press. I've taken it to WP:AFD. Single use editor with no other contributions. Si Trew (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2014 (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.

Artemis Fowl (series[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) 16:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary redirect. DexDor (talk) 19:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as implausible typo. - TheChampionMan1234 03:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral — It sure seems like it should be unnecessary but... where is the stream of traffic to this redirect coming from? It's not showing up in the search box so it seems unlikely to hurt. —mako๛ 01:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no real article links use it. welsh (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2014 (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.

Buttcoin[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) 12:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable spoof � (talk) 10:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment FYI what I found: (1) Critical site bought by Bitcoin company to better reputation [1] [2] (2) Hacked content by Bitcoin creator (looks passing) [3]. Possible redirect to that company should it warrants one? 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 15:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless or until the Bitcoin article contains information about Buttcoin. Untitl then, this redirect is just going to confuse people and/or not give them information about what they are searching for. —mako๛ 01:42, 11 September 2014 (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.

Udsa[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) 11:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An Internal WP search mainly returns results about "UDSA Agricultural Research Service", which I assume would be a typo for USDA, but I don't see how this could relate to South Africa. - TheChampionMan1234 07:34, 9 September 2014 (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.

Kÿowia[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. Mentioned at the target so readers would not be misled. Harmless and over 7 years old so WP:RFD#HARMFUL applies. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search mainly returns results from TheFreeDictionary and similar sites that simply mirror Wikipedia, so I have no clue what this might be. - TheChampionMan1234 07:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to Kiev#Etymology, Kÿowia is an early transliteration for the region around the city. Gorobay (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral — As per Gorobay, it is currently pointing to the correct place and the term is mentioned in the article. It seems unlikely that it could possible conflict with anything else. That said, it seems unlikely to help people and the traffic to it seems near enough to white noise that it's not doing much good either. I won't fight to keep it. —mako๛ 01:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the simple lack of benefit in deletion. This is pointing to the right place and doesn't conflict with anything else, so deletion will gain us nothing. Having this redirect doesn't bring much benefit, but that is still more than none so there is reason to keep it. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per Thry. Si Trew (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2014 (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.

Speedy Delete[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. CNRs though discouraged are not prohibited and the consensus is that since this redirect is both useful and harmless, as being an unlikely search term outside a Wikipedia context, it should be kept. NAC. The Whispering Wind (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect to project space. - TheChampionMan1234 07:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the outcome of the previous discussion and the lack of evidence that anything has changed since then - this is still getting many hits (77 in August for example) and is seemingly taking people to where they want to go. Not mentioned in that discussion were the new users who see a speedy deletion tag on their contribution and want to know what it is - we should have minimal barriers to this information and requiring knowledge of namespaces is a pretty big one for new users. I shall notify all the participants in the previous discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Notifications now left. I omitted the nominator as they have been indefinitely blocked since 2011. Thryduulf (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Many times I have had trouble locating precedural things like this on Wikipedia. It's easier for me now that I know, but this redirect will help others. Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Thryduulf. The top Google results indicate that the term is almost entirely used in the context of deletion processes on wikis, so I doubt the redirect is impacting any encyclopedic coverage of it. New users who aren't familiar with things like namespaces are going to be disproportionately affected by speedy deletion and I don't see any damage in keeping this there for them. Hut 8.5 17:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my vote last time, which I quote: Keep per WP:IAR if nothing else...I don't remember seeing this term commonly used outside Wikipedia, so it's reasonable to assume that the majority of those who use this title want information on Wikipedia's speedy deletion process. If you're a new user unfamiliar with what's going on, you might well look for "Speedy Delete" in the search bar or go to https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Speedy_Delete to figure out the situation. As Hut notes, such people often don't understand namespaces, so deleting this redirect will hurt them without particularly helping anyone else. Nyttend (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my vote last time when I said: Cross-namespace redirects are discouraged by not categorically disallowed. Indeed, there are many many exceptions. These kind of CNRs are generally allowed when the phrase in question is common search term, is unlikely to be confused for an article in the encylopedia, or if the redirect have been around for a long time. The stats shows show consistent daily usage of this redirect. My guess is that almost all of these people searching for "speedy deletion" would be annoyed if they were redirected to the article on Deletion instead of WP:CSD. Let's not let uncritical adherence to a normally very sensible policy of avoiding CNRs lead us to doing things which are bad for the encyclopedia. Nothing I said last time has changed? Why should the decision be any different this time? —mako๛ 01:22, 11 September 2014 (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.

Speedy deletion candidates[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. I find convincing the arguments that new users won't need to see this category (which would probably just confuse them). --BDD (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate redirect to Category namespace. - TheChampionMan1234 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. I say "weak" because the situation's different from Speedy Delete given above — newbies aren't likely to be familiar with this terminology, so it's only going to be used by experienced users who are able to find CAT:CSD through other means if necessary. Still, I don't believe that deletion will help them or anyone else, while its users will suffer (mildly) if we delete it. "Speedy deletion candidates" quite clearly refers to CAT:CSD and nothing else; it's not as if it's preventing people from finding an encyclopedia article. Nyttend (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category will almost never be used by the new users noted in the above discussion, so we don't need it so they have an easier time finding it. This then becomes an article to workspace redirect that isn't helpful. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cross-namespace redirects are generally frowned on and this one is unlikely to be used by new editors (the target page is mainly of interest to admins). Hut 8.5 06:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep - The reasons to keep this are more or less the the same as listed on the discussion for Speedy Delete above but weaker since the page seems like more a stretch and less likely to be bumped into by accident. Additionially, the traffic to this is minimal but there's at least somebody hitting this link every day. To extent that people are coming from the search box, they'll probably be just as happy hitting the CSD from Speedy Delete assming that stays (it sure looks, as I write this, like it will). CSD are not ideal but their harm is extremely minimal. On the margin, this one sure seems like it is more likely to help than hurt or confuse. —mako๛ 01:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Hut 8.5. John Vandenberg (chat) 15:39, 1 October 2014 (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.

Tokió[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 to Tokio. JohnCD (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No affinity for Hungarian. - TheChampionMan1234 07:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete or Redirect to Tokio which is closer (just minus diacritic) and includes the many dab targets there. 野狼院ひさし Hisashi Yarouin 15:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tokio; it's not hurting anything, and it's similar enough to Tokio that keeping it will (at the worst) have no substantial effect. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget to Tokio and tag as misspelling.--Lenticel (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Tokio as per 野狼院ひさし. This seems very little traffic and is likely doing extremely little good. If we keep it, Tokio seems like a reasonable target. —mako๛ 01:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My Hungarian-English dictionary does list it as Hungarian: Tokió (and in Hungarian an "ó" and an "o" are distinct letters, not treated as just a modifier/diacritic). But I am not sure that means it is entitled to hang around in the English-language Wikipedia; {{R from alternate punctuation}} etc would not seem to be merited since in Hungarian, as I say, they are distinct letters. Si Trew (talk) 13:52, 13 September 2014 (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/2014_September_9&oldid=1136083218"