Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 October 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

October 31[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on October 31, 2015.

Shasta Groene[edit]

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) 18:44, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shasta Groene. I do not know how to use the format and don't have time to learn (sorry). The page for Shasta Groene should be deleted because it serves only to redirect to the man who murdered half her family. It was created by mistake. She has done nothing in her young life to be notable on her own except being a crime victim. Wikipedia should not be a place where criminals can continue to exert more control over their victims from behind bars (by having his victim's Wikipedia page redirect to himself.) If you search for Shasta Groene in the search box I understand that it will return the murderer's page in the search results list. I understand that. But her page should not redirect there. It should not exist until she achieves notability on her own. The page should never have been created and if it is deleted it will solve the problem of it awkwardly (and wrongly I believe) redirecting to a murderer's page. --CitizenQZen (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong oppose WP:CWW/WP:MAD this article was merged to the target article, so needs to be kept per Wikipedia attribution rules. It is a valid search term. The person "Shasta Groene" is not a notable person, but her victimization by Joseph E. Duncan III makes it a reasonable search term. That Duncan has committed many notable crimes means that we do not have a wP:1E biography, so it cannot be converted into an event article, as it is multiple events. As her testimony figures prominently, the search term redirect would be there. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't understand what I am saying! If you search for Shasta Groene of course the search results will list the article about the man who murdered her family. That makes perfect sense because she is mentioned in the article. What shouldn't exist is the page "Shasta Groene" which was created by mistake and then, because she is too young to be notable on her own there is nothing on the page so someone has redirected it to the page of the man who murdered her family. The redirect should stop (that's why I bring the issue up here!) and the best way to do that is to delete the page "Shasta Groene" which was created by mistake. --CitizenQZen (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you don't understand. The intellectual property rules on Wikipedia require that we keep the redirect because it preserves the contributions of editors, where the content was merged to a different article. IT is a legal requirement of the intellectual property license Wikipedia operates under. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:56, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - tragic though it is, the only information worthy of encyclopedic note about Ms. Groene is what we have at the current target. Deleting the redirect only makes it one step more difficult for readers to find information they're seeking. It doesn't protect Ms. Groene from being associated with this murderer. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't understand! You are not reading what I am writing! Searching for Groene and having the murderer page come up in a list of search returns is FINE. That is logical. But when you search for Groene now on Wikipedia TODAY it redirects straight to the murderer's page. That is WRONG. Please for the love of god will someone just delete the Shasta Groene page which was created by mistake. The page should not exist until she does something notable on her own. Then there would be no redirect issue. --CitizenQZen (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the IP and Ivanvector. The nominator simply might not understand how redirects work. Having a setup like this is standard practice. There simply do not exist any search results for her name outside of Duncan's article, so all that deleting this redirect would do is hinder readers from accessing the information. If there were no redirect, the search results page would have one single entry about Groene. Not having her name as a redirect, therefore, only slows readers down. Additionally, I went through the redirect's entire history and the page was not created "by mistake" - it started out as a standard biographical article, and the content was merged to Duncan's to provide context and because Groene had insufficient notability to stand on her own as an article. In merge cases like this, it is standard to leave a redirect to where the content was merged to. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 21:39, 01 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    (This excludes the disambiguation page Shasta, which mentions her toward the end and with little detail. I've reformatted the entry to make reference to Duncan, but I've kept her name linked in case she eventually gets an article again. The only other results that appear when flat-searching for "Shasta Groene" have no relevance or relation to her, so I stand by my count of one.) —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 21:39, 01 November 2015 (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.

Preceptory[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 November 7#Preceptory

Revolutionary War[edit]

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. If I may summarise thus: There's significant appetite for disambiguation as this redirect makes Wikipedia US-centric, but the emerging consensus is that the current redirect target is the primary topic, as evidenced by the first line of Revolutionary War (disambiguation) and the large number of incoming links to this effect. Deryck C. 22:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Previous RfDs for this redirect and similar redirects:

Redirect into Revolutionary war. Too much a generic term to redirect into X, y or Z. Can't take the use in a specific country and extrapolate it worldwide. Hong Tray (talk) 11:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Tray (talk · contribs) has been blocked as a sock of a banned user. Calidum T|C 18:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep. "Revolutionary War" is the common name in English-speaking sources for the American Revolutionary War and generally understood to refer that particular conflict, not the other conflicts referred to in revolutionary war, as evidenced by the hundreds of pages that use this redirect. Kelly hi! 13:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the nominator recently changed revolutionary war from a redirect to a disambig page showing various revolutionary conflicts. I reverted back to a redirect to American Revolutionary War as that was the conflict all of the pages linking to that page were referring to. Kelly hi! 13:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - I would support changing to a disambiguation page listing all revolutionary wars. It seems ridiculously US-centric to have this divert to American Revolutionary War. Whereas that might be the primary topic in North America, I would suggest that in the rest of the English speaking world, Revolutionary War refers to the French Revolutionary War, a long-running, global conflict with worldwide reaching consequences.--Ykraps (talk) 14:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS This isn't the U.S. Wikipedia, this should lead to a disambiguation page. ARW/AWI/WAI are specific enough to indicate the American one. Same as how Civil War does not redirect to the American Civil War and civil war is not the US topic -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 14:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate there are indeed many such wars. Rjensen (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate. This should be fairly obvious. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 18:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move Revolutionary Wars over redirect. This is essentially the same thing as "disambiguate," but the disambiguation already exists (albeit at a slightly awkward title). -- Tavix (talk) 02:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per my comments below. The more I look into it, the more I believe the American conflict to be the primary redirect. A hatnote to Revolutionary War (disambiguation) would then be used to find the rest. -- Tavix (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment 1: As of right now, that dab only has two conflicts in it: The American Revolutionary War (singular) and the French Revolutionary Wars (plural). Is that enough of a WP:SMALLDETAILS difference to redirect Revolutionary War to the American conflict and redirect Revolutionary Wars to the French conflict? -- Tavix (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion, yes. We can hatnote the French Revolutionary Wars target, American Revolutionary War is already hatnoted and can serve as a model, though we may wish to tweak both hatnotes. Si Trew (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment 2: Are there other conflicts to consider? Hong Tray had the Cuban Revolution, Irish War of Independence, and the Philippine Revolution added to the dab at one point. I'm not sure if any of them are specifically called a "Revolutionary War," but I'm throwing it out there for consideration. -- Tavix (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the difference between a revolution and a revolutionary war? Presumably the first is a broader term covering aspects that are not purely military? We could perhaps add Arab Spring to the DAB, although we don't have titles specifically calling actions in that revolutionary wave "Revolutionary War"s (that I can find). Si Trew (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Keep. It's correctly and directly (i.e. not by transclusion) in a very large number of articles (I counted around 670 in article space), and it gets hits averaging over 100 a day (although I am not sure of that, because the hits are the same for Revolutionary war → American Revolutionary War as the stats tool has a bug in not distinguishing letter case). Changing this without changing the articles that use it would break them, but fixing up the articles first would be against WP:NOTBROKEN. As a British person, I think the term is rather US-centric, but it can be justified under WP:ENGVAR and WP:COMMONNAME (and perhaps worth an rcat as {{R to complete name}}, not sure about that). Si Trew (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The lower case form being used for the ARW is not justified under WP:DIFFCAPS, so should still point to the disambiguation page or be a disambiguation page, or be a WP:CONCEPTDAB -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:COMMONNAME refers to article titles and no-one is advocating that the article title be changed from American Revolutionary War, and WP:ENGVAR refers to spelling within the article. WP:NOTBROKEN refers to unnecessarily avoiding redirects by linking straight to the article title, and no-one is suggesting we change the link unnecessarily. We will be changing the links because it is necessary. Nothing you have said here is a reason to maintain the status quo, the only possible argument is to claim American Revolutionary War as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and that appears unlikely.--Ykraps (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure I get the point. I thought consensus was that COMMONNAME applies to all page titles, not just article titles. NOTBROKEN comes into play because things that link through this redirect would be broken if we changed its target, but aren't right at the moment (and there's a lot of them). PRIMARYTOPIC is subjective, as User:Wbm1058 puts it better, below. Si Trew (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      No, COMMONNAME refers to article titles: "Wikipedia:Article titles" (to where WP:COMMONNAME redirects), "An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles" (first two lines), "Deciding on an article title" (title of first section), "Names are often used as article titles – such as the name of the person, place or thing that is the subject of the article. However, some topics have multiple names, and this can cause disputes as to which name should be used in the article's title.", and so on and so forth. So, for example, if "Revolutionary War" is the COMMONNAME of the "American Revolutionary War", then you ought to be arguing that the article American Revolutionary War be changed to simply "Revolutionary War" and that "American Revolutionary War" become a redirect to "Revolutionary War". No-one is arguing that this should happen because "Revolutionary War" is not the COMMONNAME of "American Revolutionary War". I rather think you are confusing COMMONNAME with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
      WP:NOTBROKEN refers to fixing links to redirects that are not broken (title of section 11 of Wikipedia:Redirect), " There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page". So for example, if I changed your links from [[WP:COMMONAME]] to [[WP:ARTICLETITLES|COMMONNAME]] to avoid the redirect even though it is unnecessary because no other page occupies WP:COMMONNAME. In other words, the links are not broken. In the case we are discussing here changing the redirects will be necessary because the links will be broken. The argument being put forward here seems to be, "it’s a lot of hard work", and I for one don’t think that is a good argument.--Ykraps (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Ykraps makes a very good argument here. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 08:38, 05 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Only if it's accepted that WP:COMMONNAME never applies to redirects. I don't accept that. I though we'd had a discussion about it here at WT:RFD quite recently, but I can't find it.
      While some kinds of redirects (misspellings, disambiguations, and so on) obviously are large classes of exceptions, others (such as short names, other names, redirects with honoric titles, and so on) should follow WP:COMMONNAME. My reason is simple: For most uses, finding an article via a redirect then works the same as just finding the article itself. It may not be obvious that one has jumped through a redirect at all
      Yes, I do think it is too much hard work when it is WP:NOTBROKEN. To avoid changing the surface text of articles, those that use the redirect will have to be piped before retargetting the redirect, and they are not broken. Or, if you change the redirect first, then the articles will be broken – [reculer pour mieux sauter] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help), to step back so as better to leap forward, as Napoleon said. I prefer incremental improvement to that approach.
      But if you think WP:NOTBROKEN is out, then take WP:RFD#K4, which says essentially the same thing but specifically for redirect titles instead of article text. Since it's the article text that will have to change, I rather implied the relation between the two, that perhaps I should have made explicit.
      I think it best that if we are to continue arguing about policies/guidelines themselves, we do them on the relevant talk pages rather than embed them in a discussion about a particular redirect.
      In short, this is getting off-topic. Si Trew (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree this is getting off topic but you asked me for clarification; I don't recall making any such request of you. The discussion you have linked to is merely that, a discussion, and holds no more weight than the one we have had here.--Ykraps (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't ask for clarification and I didn't link to any discussion except "here at WT:RFD", meaning "here, at Redirects for Discussion". Si Trew (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      "I'm not sure I get the point", sounds to me like a request for clarification, perhaps you meant to say, "I don't accept your point" or something similar? The other thing you have linked to refers to deleting redirects without good reason. I am advocating retargetting the redirect with a good reason and the reason I am giving is that American Revolutionary War is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of Revolutionary War. I believe the primary topic of revolutionary war would be an article on revolutionary wars in general but as there is currently no such article, I believe there is no primary topic and the redirect in question ought to be a disambiguation page.--Ykraps (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      The points made are still relevant regardless of the applicability of WP:COMMONNAME. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 20:53, 06 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Section break[edit]
  • Keep. Looking at the dab page, this is the only one primarily known as simply the "Revolutionary War." The French one is close, but those are always "wars" plural. Eliminating the redirect will merely inconvenience readers. Calidum T|C 05:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just to correct some of you, the French Revolutionary War is not always used in the plural [[1]][[2]][[3]][[4]], It is often referred to in the plural because there were two coallitions but it was the same war which only ended with the treaty of Amiens in 1802. Also is it being suggested that we shouldn't fix it because it's too much like hard work?--Ykraps (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. However American Revolutionary Wars is a red link. That war consists of a series of campaigns (see Template:Campaignbox American Revolutionary War), which in turn consist of battles; e.g. Saratoga Campaign, Battles of Saratoga. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So there are basically two "French Revolutionary Wars": War of the First Coalition and War of the Second Coalition. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty good point. Singular or plural shouldn't be a consideration here. Uspzor (talk) 01:05, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the previous February 2012 discussion on this topic at Talk:American Revolutionary War/Archive 9 § Revolutionary War. Based on these recurring discussions, I'm going to make some bold changes, which I trust will not be controversial, and will still leave the fundamental question to be decided here: the primary topic for Revolutionary War. As pointed out above, if the American Revolutionary War is pulled off of PT status, someone will need to use AWB to make mass-changes to hundreds of articles, at the risk of being accused of "editcountitis": [[Revolutionary War]] → [[American Revolutionary War|Revolutionary War]]. Any volunteers among those who feel that the status quo is "ridiculously US-centric"?
    If there are any objections to my changes, please respond with your rationales here. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is as much absurd as independence war, civil war, secession war or anything else redirecting into some specific content. Hong Tray (talk) 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To show that this practice isn't specifically US-centric, National Revolution redirects to Révolution nationale, with a hatnote there: "National Revolution" redirects here. For the Indonesian War of Independence, see Indonesian National Revolution. There is no primary topic for War of Independence because that is the most commonly used name for this type of war. Liberation War, which should really be titled in lower case (liberation war), seems like a WP:content fork of war of independence, as it is not clear to me what the distinction between the two terms is. If there is no material distinction, then liberation war should redirect to war of independence. I wouldn't object to redirecting Liberation War to Bangladesh Liberation War, if that is the war which is primarily known by this name. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Well we can discuss all that at a later date if you like but for now I suggest we concentrate on the matter at hand and currently consensus appears to favour making Revolutionary War the disambiguation page.--Ykraps (talk) 16:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing any such consensus, opinion appears equally divided at this point. Kelly hi! 01:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disambiguate - Americans think that this is related to the ARW, but 99% of the time even they discriminated the use into the American Revolutionary War. Despite the fact that revolutionary war couldn't be associated just by being a grammatical common noun. Uspzor (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    AutoWikiBrowser finds 8663 pages link to American Revolutionary War, while 672 link to Revolutionary War. Would you like to volunteer to disambiguate them? If you can identify five links to Revolutionary War which should be disambiguated to something other than American Revolutionary War, and are not recently created or WP:OVERLINKs to the generic term "revolutionary war" (which may be subjectively disambiguated to liberation war, war of independence or war of national liberation), then I will volunteer to dab them. – Wbm1058 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not following your argument. It sounds to me like your saying we shouldn't right the wrong because you can't be bothered to fix the links. Is that it in a nutshell?--Ykraps (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • :::This is not really something that is broken and needs to be fixed. There is no right or wrong answer here as to how these redirects should work, as determining primary topics will always be somewhat subjective. In the end, the only inconvenience to readers is a possible extra click. I realize there may be some "POV warriors" who feel otherwise about priorities. I have a long to-do list of things that are broken, and higher priority for fixing – linked misspellings, history merges, etc. So if I were to prioritize this, I might make it such a low priority that I would never get to it. However, the minute something like this passes, it will get tagged with {{incoming links}} and force itself higher up the priority queue. I realize there are people who enjoy working at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, but we shouldn't pile too much unnecessary work on them. So, in a nutshell, I'd like to see someone who feels that this is so important pick up the ball and work on it. I'll support the change if the incoming links are disambiguated. Lacking any volunteers, I have to say keep. This is the kind of thing that could tie me up for a whole afternoon, or more. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I was looking into the possibility of getting approval for my Bot1058 to do this by automation. Browsing through the other bots with automated-AWB permissions, I found BD2412's BRFA, which as I suspected, ran into resistance at WP:BRFA, yet, with persistence, was finally approved. So maybe we do have an easy way to fix the links. – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per WP:EVADE, per Calidum's note. Banned users are not welcome to contribute, and that includes entertaining this discussion. I have removed my comment. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then I'd immediately renominate it with the same exact rationale. You tend to be overzealous when it comes to banned users, and your frequent advocacy to close, delete, or otherwise ignore is rather WP:POINTy. —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw) │ 08:34, 05 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks, I'll own up to that here, and I've refactored. I continue to stand by my advocacy for speedy deletion of sockpuppet-created redirects, but that's not relevant to this discussion. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I opined last time around, this is a good case for WP:DIFFCAPS. The ARW is the only thing typically referred to as "Revolutionary War", proper noun, but any violent revolution can be referred to as a revolutionary war. I was going to just close this as no consensus, which I still think would be quite justified, but I did weigh in on this before. And of course, the whole discussion is a bit poisoned from the initiator. --BDD (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2015 (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.

Programmatic out of home[edit]

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. --BDD (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sample of a huge set of redirects that require deletion and salting. They redirect to Programmatic media and were mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmatic media where the implication is that they are to be deleted and salted. They were created as what appears to be an attempt to pervert Wikipedia.

I am aware that they should be listed individually. I invoke WP:IAR for not doing so. The list is contained in this page which details the redirects that link to the now deleted article Fiddle Faddle 10:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I understand it, these should all be CSD WP:G8 "redirects to invalid targets, such as non-existent targets"? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 10:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer is a technical 'yes' but that doesn't handle the salting. Fiddle Faddle 10:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support speedy deleting them all G8 (as noted, no need for this discussion for that) and oppose blanket salting of every one of them because (a) individual review would be needed, (b) there is not yet an indication that salting is needed - they have not been repeatedly created. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am not going to disagree with you strongly. I raised it here because I believed salting was important to discuss. I favour salting, but am not going to fall out with anyone over it Fiddle Faddle 12:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We won't fall out even if we hold different views here . It looks like a load of the now-broken redirects have already been removed so identifying them and salting them may now be a problem anyway. But of those that remain, several (e.g. Trade desk) should definitely not be salted IMO, hence my unwillingness to commit to a blanket salt on all of them. "Programmatic" seems to be a marketing buzzword and "programmatic out of home" does comes up in search results (e.g. [5]) so it may be a term we want to have a redirect for (but definitely not to the article that was at "programmatic media" or anything like it). RichardOSmith (talk) 16:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support G8 and SALT. These need to be salted because they can be used as a jumping off point for recreation of Programmatic media and the SEO/PR campaign that seems to be associated with it. The redirects are an obvious attempt to create a new 'thing' and capture all related search terms. The original author has shown no signs of being willing to drop the stick on this project and I suspect one incarnation or another will be back to try it all again. If anyone wants to recreate one of these and point it at a legitimate target it is a very minor thing to ask an admin to un-protect the title. JbhTalk 13:46, 31 October 2015 (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.

Netrang City Garba[edit]

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) 18:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Creation by a highly disruptive user Raja Dancer. Check his talk page and sock IP contributions. The Avengers (talk) 07:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - "garba" doesn't seem to have any association with the city as indicated by its article, so this seems to be nonsense. (Redacted) Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as confusing. Garba is a Hindu dance so I assume that the redirect pertains to a certain version of the dance as practiced in the target city. However, I can't find evidence that said version exists or is considered notable. The closest connection that I got is that Garba is practiced in the state of Gujarat where Netrang belongs to. --Lenticel (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2015 (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/2015_October_31&oldid=1037881751"