This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 13, 2012
Donald L Lunsford
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.
Delete There is no reason to keep redirects that are a mis-spell incident. Often the request is made at the time of the redirect and they are deleted without discussion.
Stormbay (
talk)
21:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep per Interplanet Janet. Redirects from plausible misspellings and misnomers are frequently useful. Even more so, redirects from an old title are routinely kept to avoid breaking incoming links from external websites, bookmarks, etc. Both apply in this case and there would be no benefit in deletion so the correct course of action is obvious.
Thryduulf (
talk)
21:37, 15 September 2012 (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.
ßastard
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 A possibly deliberate spelling variant meaningful to some but there is sufficient feeling to not have it hard-coded here.
Tikiwont (
talk)
19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)reply
weak keep I've added
ßitch created at the same time by the same user to the nomination. Looking at their contribution history, I don't think we can say for sure whether this was vandalism or not, so it's best to assume good faith and treat it as if it wasn't. The redirects do get a small trickle of hits, and the use of the eszett for "B" is not exactly uncommon online (c.f.
Sensational spelling,
Heavy metal umlaut,
Faux Cyrillic,
Leet, etc), and with no standout single usage the generic word is the best target for them if they exist. I wouldn't go around encouraging their creation, but as we have them I don't see they're doing any harm to keep.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)reply
They can easily be typed on any keyboard set up with dead keys (standard in many Linux distros and probably other setups to), by use of windows alt codes, etc.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Week keep, given its frequent appearance on the web, it's likely that some people, possibly children or non-native speakers, will come across it and not realise what it is supposed to mean.
Siuenti (
talk)
19:23, 18 September 2012 (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.
IPhone 6
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.
Keep - It seems likely that someone finds this useful, given the
paltry but consistent traffic through the link. I imagine someone typing it into the search window to check if the product exists. Linking to the IPhone article makes sense; of course this would become an article if a product bearing this name became notable at some point in the future. In any case, I do not see any reasons at
WP:R#DELETE that apply.
VQuakr (
talk)
02:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak delete, sort of per VQuakr. I agree that people searching for it are most likely wondering whether it exists, and not having an article seems to me to be a marginally better way of answering that than pointing them to a broader topic (which they'll have to skim through to find an answer and may still leave unsure). This also applies to
IPhone 7 and
Iphone 8, can we add those to the nomination? –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
15:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - plausible typo, at a minimum, users mistakenly thinking there's an iPhone 6 would be better served by a redirect than a redlink, nothing in the nominating statement provides a motivation for deletion.
WilyD08:31, 18 September 2012 (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.
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 13, 2012
Donald L Lunsford
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.
Delete There is no reason to keep redirects that are a mis-spell incident. Often the request is made at the time of the redirect and they are deleted without discussion.
Stormbay (
talk)
21:02, 15 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep per Interplanet Janet. Redirects from plausible misspellings and misnomers are frequently useful. Even more so, redirects from an old title are routinely kept to avoid breaking incoming links from external websites, bookmarks, etc. Both apply in this case and there would be no benefit in deletion so the correct course of action is obvious.
Thryduulf (
talk)
21:37, 15 September 2012 (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.
ßastard
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 A possibly deliberate spelling variant meaningful to some but there is sufficient feeling to not have it hard-coded here.
Tikiwont (
talk)
19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)reply
weak keep I've added
ßitch created at the same time by the same user to the nomination. Looking at their contribution history, I don't think we can say for sure whether this was vandalism or not, so it's best to assume good faith and treat it as if it wasn't. The redirects do get a small trickle of hits, and the use of the eszett for "B" is not exactly uncommon online (c.f.
Sensational spelling,
Heavy metal umlaut,
Faux Cyrillic,
Leet, etc), and with no standout single usage the generic word is the best target for them if they exist. I wouldn't go around encouraging their creation, but as we have them I don't see they're doing any harm to keep.
Thryduulf (
talk)
14:58, 13 September 2012 (UTC)reply
They can easily be typed on any keyboard set up with dead keys (standard in many Linux distros and probably other setups to), by use of windows alt codes, etc.
Thryduulf (
talk)
10:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Week keep, given its frequent appearance on the web, it's likely that some people, possibly children or non-native speakers, will come across it and not realise what it is supposed to mean.
Siuenti (
talk)
19:23, 18 September 2012 (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.
IPhone 6
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.
Keep - It seems likely that someone finds this useful, given the
paltry but consistent traffic through the link. I imagine someone typing it into the search window to check if the product exists. Linking to the IPhone article makes sense; of course this would become an article if a product bearing this name became notable at some point in the future. In any case, I do not see any reasons at
WP:R#DELETE that apply.
VQuakr (
talk)
02:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak delete, sort of per VQuakr. I agree that people searching for it are most likely wondering whether it exists, and not having an article seems to me to be a marginally better way of answering that than pointing them to a broader topic (which they'll have to skim through to find an answer and may still leave unsure). This also applies to
IPhone 7 and
Iphone 8, can we add those to the nomination? –
Arms & Hearts (
talk)
15:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep - plausible typo, at a minimum, users mistakenly thinking there's an iPhone 6 would be better served by a redirect than a redlink, nothing in the nominating statement provides a motivation for deletion.
WilyD08:31, 18 September 2012 (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.