This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CloudComputation (talk | contribs) at 10:47, 15 August 2014 (→IPhone 6: Prevent WP:SHOUT as JOJHutton accussed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:47, 15 August 2014 by CloudComputation (talk | contribs) (→IPhone 6: Prevent WP:SHOUT as JOJHutton accussed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) < August 13 August 15 >August 14
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on August 14, 2014.
미셸오바마
- 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 WP:SNOW delete. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- 미셸오바마 → Michelle Obama (links to redirect • history • stats)
Delete per WP:FORRED - no particular connection to Korea. JohnCD (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 19:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- delete per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff --Lenticel 00:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete WP:NOT a translation dictionary. No particular affinity for Korean by Michelle Obama -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and saction user if creation of these continue. I have speedy deleted few Korean sub-stubs by creator of this useless redirect. jni ...just not interested 06:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete per WP:DENY. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- 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.
Piotr Żyżelewicz
He also played in other bands � (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: apparently Piotr Żyżelewicz is best known for his participation in this band, so redirect is warranted. Other notable bands he played in could be listed in his entry within target article, which is more then enough to address the nom's issue. As I gather, there are several articles about him in Polish music-related media, which on its own does not allow to stubify the title immediately (narrow topical and geographical scope of sources) or delete the redirect per WP:RED, but warrants tagging redirect with {{R with possibilities}}. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 13:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as creator, per above. GiantSnowman 18:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
T:SINGLE
- T:SINGLE → Template:One source (links to redirect • history • stats)
- T:VGR → Template:Video game reviews (links to redirect • history • stats)
Unused cross-namespace redirect. — Keφr 10:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. A standard psuedo-namespace template shortcut. This shortcut was previously nominated for deletion three times, and was kept each time. - Eureka Lott 01:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid. Also, previous discussions were batch nominations; at least part of the reason for keeping was that the nomination failed to address templates individually. What are the merits of this particular redirect? Nobody seems to be using it. This one hit every few days might just as well be Googlebot. — Keφr 05:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- It might be better to ask what has changed since those earlier discussions. You haven't identified any of our reasons for deleting a redirect. What makes this harmful? - Eureka Lott 06:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is a cross-namespace redirect from article space, which defeats separation of encyclopaedic content from infrastructure, and there is no evidence of its usefulness, so it makes little sense to apply the grandfather clause to it. The template has other redirects; typing
{{tl|Oneref}}
is only one character longer, for one. {{SINGLE}} and other variations are free to create. Do I have to repeat it every single time? — Keφr 06:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is a cross-namespace redirect from article space, which defeats separation of encyclopaedic content from infrastructure, and there is no evidence of its usefulness, so it makes little sense to apply the grandfather clause to it. The template has other redirects; typing
- It might be better to ask what has changed since those earlier discussions. You haven't identified any of our reasons for deleting a redirect. What makes this harmful? - Eureka Lott 06:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- WP:NOTAGAIN is an argument to avoid. Also, previous discussions were batch nominations; at least part of the reason for keeping was that the nomination failed to address templates individually. What are the merits of this particular redirect? Nobody seems to be using it. This one hit every few days might just as well be Googlebot. — Keφr 05:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep: no more or less valid deletion rationale was presented. While term "SINGLE" is ambiguous (there are single issue warnings, templates for singles, etc.), page history does not reveal any confusion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- delete this pseudo-namespace is not needed. Frietjes (talk) 23:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BDD (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- 'keep. Convenient, which is a reason for a redirect of this nature. "not needed" is in a sense true of every shortcut--we could always write them out in full. "NOTAGAIN" can be a valid argument--because of variable attendance here, sufficient nominations can delete anything; it's accepted at afd that too many are a bad practice, though it has proven incapable of numerical definition. DGG ( talk ) 15:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
IPhone 6
- IPhone 6 → IPhone (links to redirect • history • stats)
It is the 4th Nomination for RFD. See 1st, 2nd, 3rd nomination for reason. I want that page to be deleted. CloudComputation
CloudTracker 04:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:CRYSTAL: there is no such product, no launch date, and no information to provide to readers. This redirect is unhelpful and confusing. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Are we really going to rehash this again? The last discussion took a month and a half to close and it is not even two months cold yet. Do we really need to continue to disrupt this redirect with this pointedness? To be clear WP:CRYSTAL is only a guideline about article content. It does not, however, prohibit useful redirects, especially a redirect from a term that has gotten massive coverage. How much coverage? The latest google search brings up 77 Million results, all of which link the term "iPhone 6" with the "iPhone" line of devices. Now how can a Misplaced Pages redirect ignore such a massive amount of coverage? This is turning out to be a classic example of gaming the system and wikilawyering, in order to prevent the redirect from serving its function.
- Some very notable examples of articles that link the term "iPhone 6" to the iPhone include: Forbes, International Business Times, The Wall Street Journal, Business Insider, Bloomberg, The Daily Mail, Yahoo, India Today, The Telegraph, and many more. Not only are these not rumor sites, but these are very reliable sources, and these are all from this past week.
- Its time to stop this charade and let the redirect do its work. Stop disrupting Misplaced Pages for very minor issues. A redirect is not hurting anyone, so just Back away from the horse, its dead already.--JOJ 13:13, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
speedy or snow keep. It is obvious that the term is used.It is less obvious to me why we do not have an article on it--if any future product is certain to be real, this one is. In the meantime we need at once a redirect. There are real problems at WP that need cleanup. DGG ( talk ) 15:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy keep for two reasons. First, no deletion rationale provided. Second, This is the third RFD in six months. Trying again and again and again until one gets the result they want is disrupty and WP:POINTy. Resolute 16:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- The rationale is now in my comment. CloudComputation
CloudTracker 02:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- The rationale is now in my comment. CloudComputation
- Keep - obvious search term, sends readers to what they're looking for, and at this point we want to discourage creation. No apparent encyclopaedic rationale for deletion. WilyD 16:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep and Protect. Nothing has changed since previous discussions. --erachima talk 19:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Did you mean: Salting the page after being deleted? CloudComputation
CloudTracker 02:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- Did you mean: Salting the page after being deleted? CloudComputation
- Keep - Seems to be an abuse of process, if the first, second, and third time didn't merit a change or deletion - why should it now? Nominator should know better and simply wanting the page deleted for no other reason is incredibly disruptive. Stop wasting our time already. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and salt. Windows 9 now have 1.15 Billion results. But, those are from the sources that JOJHutton has said (BusinessNewsDaily, Yahoo, Recode)! As now Windows 9 is deleted, why don't delete iPhone 6?! This discussion will end up like Windows 9. CloudComputation
CloudTracker 01:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)- P.S. This is Misplaced Pages, not Google. or Bing. Windows 9 was salted right after the RFD closed as delete even 1.15 Billion results were found in Google. CloudComputation
CloudTracker 02:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)- More reasons: This redirect is misleading people who is finding info for the upcoming iPhone. This redirect will not be harmful once Apple officers have told that iPhone 6 is coming and the Shipping date. And Per the comment below. CloudComputation
CloudTracker 10:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
- More reasons: This redirect is misleading people who is finding info for the upcoming iPhone. This redirect will not be harmful once Apple officers have told that iPhone 6 is coming and the Shipping date. And Per the comment below. CloudComputation
- P.S. This is Misplaced Pages, not Google. or Bing. Windows 9 was salted right after the RFD closed as delete even 1.15 Billion results were found in Google. CloudComputation
- Delete. Redirects are means of leading readers to information. A redirect that is not doing so is misleading and harmful, instead of being useful. It sends the reader after a wild goose chase: He or she peruses 58 pages (A4 pages) and finds nothing, eventually realizing that his time is wasted. It is better to let readers' search for iPhone 6 to reach the search page, where they immediately realize no such article exists. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Delete per Codename Lisa, people looking for iPhone 6 on Misplaced Pages will instead get redirected to a page that has nothing about what they're meant to look for, we don't want to mislead our readers, do we? - TheChampionMan1234 10:26, 15 August 2014 (UTC)