Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2011 April 11

April 11
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on April 11, 2011

Wikipedia:Use-mention distinction



 * 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. Ruslik_ Zero 19:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → Help:Contents/Links (links to redirect • [ history] • )

No clear relationship between the redirect and the target, the redirect has no incoming links and as far as I can tell is not used. I asked the creator what the relationship was between the redirect and its target page, and his/her answer did not really convince me. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Having read our article on Use–mention distinction for the first time, it would seem that Wikipedia is not a dictionary might be a better target since that deals directly with the concept of articles about encyclopedic subjects rather than articles about words. It does so from a narrow, negative perspective but I don't see any substantive connection to the current target.  Traffic stats are showing an average of one hit per quarter or so, suggesting that this is not an especially common concept that readers are looking for.  Rossami (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm very familiar with the concept of the use-mention distinction, which is a bedrock principle in analytical philosophy and philosophy of language, and I agree that there is no apparent connection to the target.  Nor is there, really, to Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so instead of casting about for some conceivable place to point this unused redirect, better to delete.  Glenfarclas  ( talk ) 04:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

非死不可



 * 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 Kept. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * → Facebook (links to redirect • [ history] • )

I translate this as "not death is not okay". This has nothing to do with facebook. therefore, I nominate for deletion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F The redirect makes no sense, such as redirecting Apple to Orange 174.117.233.162 (talk) 02:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC) The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.
 * Mild keep. The reason why "非死不可" (which, grammatically, should really be translated as "must die") is used sometimes among Chinese-speaking netizens for "Facebook" is due to sound similarity, as a humorous comment on how Facebook is addictive.  ("非死不可" is pronounced "Feisibuke.")  Yes, confusion is likely.  (For example, one netizen's comment about Taiwanese president Ma Ying-jeou's creation of a Facebook account caused confusion that he was making a death threat against President Ma.)  However, it is true that it is very unlikely that it would be utilized as a redirect by someone coming to English Wikipedia to look for the Facebook article.  Nevertheless, I don't see a harm in keeping it.  --Nlu (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Facebook was created in the US, is primarily English, and is a native English-language topic. This term should be defined in Wiktionary, not on Wikipedia. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep And @65.93.12.101, Facebook is not an English site, it supports many different languages. Python eggs (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nlu's analysis. It's a legitimate source of confusion which exists in the real world.  The purpose of an encyclopedia is to help resolve knowledge gaps exactly like this.  Rossami (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This does have to do with Facebook, it's a pun that's going around the internet these days. It's a possible, though admittedly not super-likely, search term, and it's not doing any harm. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 14:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Slang terms do not belong here. Wikipedia is not a dictionary Anyways, I soft-redirected the page to Wiktionary's article.  174.117.233.162 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment True, But redirects are navigational aids, not articles, so I don't think that policy is talking about this. Tideflat (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Tideflat is correct. WP:NOTDICDEF addresses page content, not page titles.  It does not apply to this question.  Rossami (talk) 16:35, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not the Chinese Wikipedia Senior Trend (talk) 01:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, does no harm and leads the reader to the right article (until we have something else that talks about the pun, if there is enough to write about that). —Кузьма討論 05:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment then it should rediretc to wiktionary 非死不可 65.94.45.160 (talk) 05:37, 20 April 2011 (UTC)