Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 June 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

June 26

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on June 26, 2013

Thug U

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) 16:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Implausible redirect, barely any reliable secondary sources indicating the nickname of the football team. -- LuK3 (Talk) 19:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete several different universities share this nickname -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There may be something to that since 15 minute before the RFD it redirected to Miami Hurricanes football. Also, before anyone asks that article did not mention the term either.--70.49.82.84 (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly speedily as long-overlooked vandalism. This is a somewhat common pejorative with no special connection to any one university (and not nearly notable enough even for a dictionary definition, much less an encyclopedia article). Rossami (talk) 00:21, 3 July 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:UR

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. No decision on whether an overwrite might eventually be necessary but the evidence presented here does not suggest that it's needed yet. Rossami (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

UR has a myriad of meanings. Frietjes (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom , not UR -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until there's something to overwrite it with. As a former title of this template, we shouldn't be in a hurry to delete. --BDD (talk) 16:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm sceptical of nominations which say "this could mean other things" but don't name any of those other things; in this case there evidently are other things called UR but in the absence of any immediately obvious ones which might require templates I don't see why this should be deleted. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:35, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, one of them could be Template:University of Richmond, although I still believe the page history means we should just let this one be. Template titles are invisible to readers anyway; it's very easy to spend more time worrying about them than it's worth. --BDD (talk) 04:29, 7 July 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.

Sparkasse Hagen

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 stubify. Please contact me if you have concerns about this close, but it's a generally accepted principle that anyone can end an RfD by converting a redirect to a stub (
within reason). --BDD (talk) 23:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

please delete the redirect. it is a left-over of a move from the original title

Sparkasse Hagen tower. nomination per BDD's statement. – more detailed explanation: the article is about one special building of a company (a german bank). The bank is called Sparkasse Hagen, see de:Sparkasse Hagen. The bank owns several buildings. So keeping the redirect is – in principle – like having an article about Berlin (the smaller, more "local" topic), but no article about Germany (the bigger, broader topic), and then redirecting Germany to Berlin. Holger1959 (talk) 14:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

I don't know. If for example the much bigger de:Erste Bank (one of the 3 biggest savings bank in Austria) is not notable enough [1] for english Wikipedia, then i assume, Sparkasse Hagen is also not. Please keep in mind that it is only one of hundreds "independent" savings banks (de:Sparkasse) of Germany, see de:Liste der Sparkassen in Deutschland. Rated by assets it is not even part of the top 100 largest german savings banks. And as a "master topic" english Wikipedia has only german public bank with a rather broad and confusing mix of savings bank content, so a new article will have many red links. Here the possibilities in my view:
1. leave the redirect unchanged – bad option, misleading, see above and [2]
2. replace the redirect with a article about the bank – possible, but unsure if it will be accepted, and someone has to work on it (i am not really keen on)
3. replace the redirect with a disambiguation page – possible, but a less-than-ideal solution because there is no general article about German "Sparkasse", only the broader german public bank and savings bank
4. delete the redirect – ok, because the article about the tower always was an orphan, and link rot should not be a problem, because Wikipedia shows logs to visitors, see for example Talk:Berlin (album)
Holger1959 (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Write a stub for the bank. Google News hits appear to strongly suggest it's notable. Failing that, though, I think keeping the redirect is preferable to deletion per Rossami. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 15:01, 7 July 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.

Mica Kings

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) 06:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WT:INB to the point of deletion - was later moved but redirect remains - which I think should not be and as such deleted. In fact - The redirect constitutes self-promotion and Speedy deletion criterion G11 may apply. Jethwarp (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

the original article claimed they were so important in its industry it was the colloquial name--without trying to judge that, I moved it to a more neutral title. The question is whether the redirect is needed to preserve the chain of attribution. DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mica Kings was never a colloquial name of CH Pvt Ltd or for that case even any other particular company - Mica Kings to be used as name of company may amount to as
WP:HOAX - pl. see my comments at Talk:Chhattu_Ram_Horil_Ram_Private_Limited#Reference_-_interpretation and at User_talk:DGG#Mica_Kings_listed_at_Redirects_for_discussion. Thanx. Jethwarp (talk) 16:23, 26 June 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.

Chris Butcher

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) 06:04, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a company page that makes no mention of this name. noq (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I agree with User:Arms - since target doesn't mention the name Chirst Butcher - so I vote for delete. Jethwarp (talk) 13:20, 26 June 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_June_26&oldid=1039432968"