Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 2
May 4 >

May 3[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 3, 2015.

Asia-Pacific 2015 Tour[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. 20:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as vague. Most of the information I get when searching for this include a poker tour and flight information. Tavix | Talk  23:38, 3 May 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.

DealFinder[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. 15:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a promotional and ambiguous redirect that isn't mentioned at the targeted page Tavix | Talk  23:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vague. there's a lot hits in different companies (esp. banks) about DealFinder. It also seems to be a name of ac certain malware so explore links at your risk. --Lenticel (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lots of different deal finders out there. This is advertising AA as a deal. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not mentioned at target. WilyD 11:33, 6 May 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.

Top 100 historical figures[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 May 11#Top 100 historical figures

Cineplex (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 both as unopposed. Deryck C. 20:05, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Album names can receive a lot of rumors before they are officially announced. These are a couple of rumored names for one of Ludacris's album that turned out to be false. Tavix | Talk  17:44, 3 May 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.

United States Deparment of State[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. Deryck C. 20:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do redirects based on misspellings, and shouldn't. Herostratus (talk) 13:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nominatorUmais Bin Sajjad (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we most certainly do have redirects based on misspellings, that form useful search aids. This is a well established redirect, over 7 years old, and deletion is potentially harmful breaking external links. WP:RFD#HARMFUL is applicable. Just Chilling (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since otherwise, I have no idea why {{R from misspelling}} exists. Steel1943 (talk) 20:30, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:RTYPO. Misspellings that are plausible are usually kept, and I believe this one to be plausible. Tavix | Talk  20:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while this is by no means a common misspelling (it's getting barely any hits at all), the redirect is old, harmless, and cheap. Sideways713 (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep plausible misspelling. --Lenticel (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the nominator is wrong. It is one of the primary reasons that redirects exist, to navigate from likely/common typos, why we have {{R from misspelling}} -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as old {{R from typo}}. (WP:SNOWBALL? Too early to close?) Si Trew (talk) 13:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we most certainly do keep redirects based on misspellings, Herostratus, if they are plausible, and tag them with {{R from misspelling}}. If this was a very newly created redirect and obviously a mistake then we might delete, but this has been around for 7 years. Ivanvector (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Enh OK. I would question having "United States Deparment of State" and none of the other "Deparment"s... if you're looking for any other Department (Defense, Justice, whatever (and I assume that searches for these Departments outnumber State alone by a fair margin)), and you mistakenly type "United States Deparm" in the search box, United States Deparment of State is going to be all alone looking at you in bold from the search box... that is the usual signal for "we've found your match, mate!" which is how I came across it and I didn't find that particularly helpful. Granted if you read if carefully you'll see the missing "t". However, how much we want readers to have slow down and go over their search results letter-by-letter to make sure it's what they want... dunno bout that. Herostratus (talk) 19:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Herostratus: I may be wrong on this, but I have noticed as of late that if a search term is typed into the search box that is a close match to its target (or if there are multiple similar titles that match the keystrokes at the beginning) that in some cases, only the article title will show up in the search box drop down, and the redirects may not appear at all. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, in the "little" search box (the search box that appears on all article pages, as opposed to the search page)? Don't think I've seen that... anyway none of this is a big deal, sure OK keep it. Herostratus (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Herostratus: As for other "Deparment"s, no, creation is not the inverse of deletion. This redirect has existed for many years and gets hits, from where we don't know, so we keep it because it seems useful. Creating others would just be makework and make things more wrong for the sake of some kind of symettry. This is a sore thumb, for sure, and it was right for it to be brought to RfD for discussion, but the conclusion seems to be that we keep it cos its old and we don't know what else out there on the Interweb might link to it, although stats are at noise level, it's WP:NOTBROKEN. Si Trew (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Changing mine actually. Looking at the stats etc which I did for the ping to Herostratus above, it is WELL below noise level, like one hit a week presumably a bot. There are no incoming links. It can safely go. I agree the principle, we keep misspellings, but in this case, it can safely go. Si Trew (talk) 05:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plausible typo. WilyD 11:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep Skipping a keystroke is by far one of the most common mistakes to make when searching for a topic. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 18:28, 6 May 2015 (UTC)fSNOW[reply]
    It does look to go for a WP:SNOWBALL, me and the nominator (presumably) dissenting. That's fine, I won't lose sleep over it. I changed my vote from keep to delete because I think in this particular case it is useless if not harmful, but agree with the general principle that we keep misspellings: I just don't think this needs to be one of them. But striking my delete since this is patently snowballing to a keep: I ain't going that far meself, but struck the delete. Si Trew (talk) 07:04, 8 May 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.

Waadi Animations[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. Deryck C. 15:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This redirect is a hoax. The reason: Waadi Animatioons is an animation company formed as a result of joint venture between two production companies 'SOC Films' (production house) and 'ARY Films' (film distributor). The joint venture is for making an animated film 3 Bahadur. I don't see any valid reason or point to redirect an animation company to a film distributor. So this redirect should clearly be Deleted. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per recent discussion about this redirect, which was resulted in to keep the redirect. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 08:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Previous discussion was disclosed as Keep for reason 'personal benefit' or something like that. But this nomination is for deletion with valid reason.Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep and whack Umais Bin Sajjad with a large trout. It's way too soon to have another deletion discussion on this, and if the nominator's interested in creating an article on Waadi Animations (as he indicated in the previous discussion) the correct procedure is still to overwrite the redirect. Sideways713 (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Im no more interested in writing an article on Waadi Animations. [[Sideways713]] Please review the reason I mentioned above and make the decision before whacking someone. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it for someone else to create the page it properly or redirect the target to appropriate page not a 'film distributor'. Captain Assassin I request you to avoid unnecessary redirects in future. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This editor is the nominator of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
— 39.47.33.16 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Speedy keep as the last discussion closed less than a week ago. Tavix | Talk  23:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per Tavix. Si Trew (talk) 13:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per the previous discussion which closed a week ago. Since it has been suggested (by the nominator) that an article can be written about Waadi Animations, it is not necessary or proper to delete the redirect. Just write the article on top of it. Ivanvector (talk) 16:51, 4 May 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.

Electric field strength[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 wrong forum since this is a move request. I will soon transfer this request to Talk:Signal strength. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

move Signal strength over here. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:17, 3 May 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_May_3&oldid=1138580631"