Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 25[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 25, 2015.

Sir David Cameron[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 David Young Cameron (non-admin closure) by Si Trew (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: He doesn't have a knighthood. If he does get one (which I doubt), then this redirect can be easily recreated. Pickuptha'Musket (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - He's never been referred to as "Sir" and it's unlikely anyone will refer to him as such, Although I do refer to him as another word but unfortunately I can't repeat that here. –Davey2010Talk 22:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per BDD - Looking at the stats below it does seem alot of people use the redirect so it is for now atleast serving a purpose ... even if it is incorrect, Guess there's no harm in keeping & adding the "R from inc name" template to it. –Davey2010Talk 15:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget - I decide to weak Keep and then something better pops up ... I literally give up now . –Davey2010Talk 17:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Redirects are cheap; why not satisfy these readers who may have thought that he is knighted. Whether he actually is or not doesn't matter. Rcsprinter123 (natter) @ 22:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete False; WP:BLP. Ivanvector (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. It's an obscure synonym at best. --Lenticel (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment When I checked the redirects to this article I noticed this one but decided not to nominate it because I thought that some people could be mistaken, believing that he is, indeed, a knight. Now I am a bit split...--The Theosophist (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag with {{R from incorrect name}}. Completely plausible error. Many important British people have a "Sir" designation, and the PM is a pretty important person. Not saying I would make the mistake, but it's very easy to imagine a reader doing so. BLP would concern me if this were in the article or if it were negative, but neither of those are the case. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I believe in useful {{R from incorrect name}}s, but this isn't one of them. This redirect could leas someone who isn't familiar with how Wikipedia works to believe that since this redirect led them here, the redirect's target has been given the title "Sir". In other words, the redirect is possibly harmful due to promoting false information. Steel1943 (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2015 (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.

IKEA nesting instinct[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) 16:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this separately from Remaining Men Together since this one was reportedly merged, though looking over the target article, that doesn't seem to be the case. IKEA wasn't mentioned at all at the time, and it still isn't. BDD (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - was WP:OR and probably a WP:COPYVIO as a standalone article and those issues would remain if it were to be merged. Someone can recreate this article if someone can find a notable scholarly analysis of this phenomenon that isn't just a review of the book, or the book itself. Ivanvector (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2015 (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.

Remaining Men Together[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) 16:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable concept not discussed at the target article, nor that of the film adaptation. BDD (talk) 15:52, 25 June 2015 (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.

New River, Nanjing[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. Links from the New River DAB page to the two candidates could usefully be added by anyonw who knows enough Chinese to be confident of getting them right. JohnCD (talk) 16:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improper literal redirect which is much unlikely to be searched. GZWDer (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. No need to keep this.  Philg88 ♦talk 16:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:XY. Chinese place names are often translated literally rather than phonetically (e.g. Pearl River, Yellow River). But within Nanjing there's both 上新河 and 秦淮新河, so this redirect is ambiguous and should be deleted. Deryck C. 17:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deryck Chan: If this is ambiguous, would it be better to disambiguate it? I noticed that there aren't any Chinese places listed at New River, but should there be? -- Tavix (talk) 15:56, 1 July 2015 (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.

Sampernandu[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) 14:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to propose the deletion of this redirect. When you select your hometown in Facebook it shows Sampernandu instead of the official name San Fernando, Pampanga. This creates a confusion among those who live in San Fernando, Pampanga which results in complaints about the said name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.148.208.190 (talk) 14:19, 25 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nominator. This is a page move redirect which is not from an old name but from a failed experiment by Thenonhacker to rename the page to affect the way that Facebook operates, which we have little control over. The same user created the page on Kapampangan Wikipedia, however the interlanguage link from here is to pam:San Fernando Lakanbalen, Pampanga, which does not mention "Sampernandu" at all. I think this is in good faith and not vandalism, but it should be deleted. Ivanvector (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not our problem if Facebook puts a city under a random unknown name, "Sampernandu" on Google seems to bring up Facebook, Instagram and surname crap but nothing of relevance, "Sampernandu" isn't even mentioned in San Fernando, Pampanga so seeing as it's not a referred term for the area I'm personally not seeing any reason for keeping. –Davey2010Talk 22:32, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This redirect mess was created by the same user back in January 2015 as he was creating "aliases" for the city. I'm not sure if Facebook captured the title he created, but I know that user created this fictitious title which started this mess.--RioHondo (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a very unlikely misspelling. I can't recall a Philippine language or dialect that pronounce the name that way. --Lenticel (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2015 (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.

What is the best story[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 deleted by Ponyo: (CSD G5: Mass deletion of pages added by Jovovich has the best story ever.) (non-admin closure) -- Tavix (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be deleted, because I don't see what this redirect (created from a page move) has to do with the article. Adam9007 (talk) 00:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have no knowledge of why the content was originally at that page. Iamahashtag (talk) 02:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • DELETE (Radera) This redirect is a question, and "best" is not clearly defined and subjective. Wikipedia should be a neutral encyclopedia, shouldn't it? User:Andra Datormolnet Talk
    CloudTracker     10:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How bizarre! New user Jovovich has the best story ever made the target article, along with a few other taxonomy stubs—and thanks for that, Jovovich. But the Agrochola schreieri was originally made under this title, despite otherwise being a normal taxonomy stub. And this is the user's most recent creation, so it seems strange if meant as a test. --BDD (talk) 13:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nonsense. Very strange creation, but since it was only created yesterday there's no need to keep it as a page move redirect. Ivanvector (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2015 (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/2015_June_25&oldid=1037879611"