May 8
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on May 8, 2013
Tears Always Win
- 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 article moved over redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 05:54, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Tears Always Win" was chosen as Keys' next single, so an article on it has been created under the title 'Tears Always Win (song)', but if someone just types in 'Tears Always Win', they will be redirected to the article on the album rather than the song itself. ---Tsu'tey♫ (talk) 21:59, 8 May 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Bishops Palace St Davids
- 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 speedy delete. Redirects resulting from a page created in the wrong namespace are eligible for G6. Thryduulf (talk) 05:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved AfC submission from WP to WT. Please delete
- Note Original author has been notified of the move Gmt2001 (talk) 21:02, 8 May 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.
Wikipedia:Articles for creation/SH3D21
- 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 speedy delete. Redirects resulting from a page created in the wrong namespace are eligible for G6. Thryduulf (talk) 05:57, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfC submission moved from WP to WT namespace. Please delete Gmt2001 (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Original author has been notified of the move Gmt2001 (talk) 20:58, 8 May 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.
The Big Cheese
- 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 Disambiguate ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:27, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article used to have a summary for an episode of Camp Lazlo, but it has since been redirected to the series' episode list. However, another cartoon, Dexter's Laboratory, has an episode with the same title, so a case could be made for a redirect to either episode list. I suppose a disambiguation is a possibility too if there are other things titled "The Big Cheese", but I'm only aware of the two I've mentioned here. Paper Luigi T • C 19:24, 8 May 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.
You would have gotten away for it if it weren't for you meddling kids
- 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 ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Phrase is incorrect (should be "I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids") and it seems doubtful that people would type in or link to this exact phrase in order to find the Scooby-Doo article Jameboy (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. At least in the UK (dunno about elsewhere) the phrase has entered the popular lexicon and applied to many different situations, so it will be frequently adjusted to suit the particular situation. It's not likely that people will look this up instead of searching "scooby do" but they may look it up to find the origin, or it might be linked or copied from where someone uses it. It's should be marked as unprintworthy, but its not doing any harm to warrant deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There's also You would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids; after the first two words the "for" version (which is more obviously incorrect) appears in the search box. Peter James (talk) 18:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the first and keep the second as author - this is a common misquotation, just like beam me up, Scotty. The first one is rather awkward. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 21:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I hope this doesn't derail the discussion but I have now had the first one deleted. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 17:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Close the redirect was speedy deleted, G7.--Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- We're still discussing a second one, apparently. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the second one as unlikely redirect (You and I are a bit too far for comfort). Thanks for the heads up BDD.--Lenticel (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete the second. I'd need to see evidence that that is a common misquotation. The phrase is roughly "I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling kids." In the redirect under discussion, the first "you" must refer to the criminal and the second must refer to the Scooby Gang. So who exactly would be saying it? Highly implausible search term. --BDD (talk) 16:42, 15 May 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.
We who are young (movie)
- 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. --BDD (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely redirect Revolution1221 (talk · email · contributions) 00:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. Most readers do not know our capitalization rules, but they are familiar with putting things in parentheses to clarify ambiguous titles. So, keep, tag as ((R from unnecessary disambiguation)) Ego White Tray (talk) 01:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and tag per EWT. Several of the methods used to find Wikipedia articles are case sensitive so this helps people using those methods. Many movies are based on books or share their name with other notable topics, and so they have "(movie)" as part of the article title. Searching for the title of a movie with the "(movie)" disambiguator is therefore very likely. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: it's the title an editor used to create the article, and does no harm. There were 3 things wrong with the title: didn't need disambiguation, needed caps, and we use "(film)" rather than "(movie)", but there's no need to delete it. PamD 07:02, 8 May 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.