. Fenix down (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
- {{no redirect|1 = TottenhamHotspur.com }} → :Tottenham Hotspur F.C. (talk · links · [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=TottenhamHotspur.com&action=history history] · [https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews?start=2019-08-19&end=2019-09-17&project=en.wikipedia.org&pages=TottenhamHotspur.com stats]) [ Closure: {{#ifeq:{{FULLPAGENAME}}|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|(@subpage)|[{{fullurl:TottenhamHotspur.com|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#TottenhamHotspur.com closed as keep}}}} keep]/[{{fullurl:TottenhamHotspur.com|action=edit&summary={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#TottenhamHotspur.com closed as retarget}}}} retarget]/[{{fullurl:TottenhamHotspur.com|action=delete&wpReason={{Urlencode:{{FULLPAGENAME}}#TottenhamHotspur.com closed as delete}}&wpMovetalk=1}} delete]}} ]
SPAM The Banner talk 14:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
:Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 15:10, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Simple {{t|R from URL}} for the club's official website. --BDD (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep Official website for one of the largest football clubs in England (and one the best-known in the world), it doesn't need promotion on Wikipedia, therefore can't see how it could be spam. Hzh (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete I don't understand this redirect or why anyone would type in the url into wikipedia. Shouldn't this be deleted? WP:POINTLESS? Govvy (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
:: It's standard to redirect domain name to main article, e.g. Microsoft.com. It'll redirect to the main article if someone wikilinks TottenhamHotspur.com in another article. WP:POINTLESS is about vandalism, there is nothing that can be considered vandalism here. Hzh (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
:::Hmm, I thought pointless linked to pointless content! I consider these redirects bad, I've seen people using them to WP:CITESPAM a lot. Govvy (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
:: For the url's it's less about them being "typed" into search bar and more about links in references.
{{cite web |title=Sample article about player testimonial from official website |website=TottenhamHotspur.com |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_18 |url-status=dead}}
vs {{cite web |title="Sample article about playr testimonial from fansite |website=HotSpurHQ.com |url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_18 |url-status=dead}}. Following the wikilink shows the first website is official, also removes need to duplicate info with a website "a.com" and a publisher "A Inc.".Bogger (talk) 07:56, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. Not spam, but an {{tl|R from domain name}} from the official website. -- Tavix (talk) 03:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete are we really going to list every sizeable website in the world as a redirect to their parent media company? GiantSnowman 07:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
:: It's the standard practice. Otherwise feel free to nominate these redirects for deletion - :Category:Redirects from domain names. Hzh (talk) 10:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
::Uhh, Tottenham Hotspur F.C. is a football club, not a media company. -- Tavix (talk) 17:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As noted above, it's completely normal for an organization's article to have a redirect from its primary website's URL. If you disagree with this practice, please start a Village Pump discussion about the practice. The only reason to nominate a few individual URL redirects is if you think they don't comply with the pattern, e.g. your proposal above to delete a .us redirect for a company whose main website is .de. And in this case, it's even more of a problem, since there's no reason for one of the world's most successful football clubs to advertise on Wikipedia. Nyttend backup (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Keep. As others have said it's standard practice to link primary domain names to the appropriate articles. The most compelling argument is for the link in references as stated by Bogger. Jts1882 | talk 15:30, 22 September 2019 (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.