Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 10[edit]

This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on September 10, 2015.

Coffee Vision Inc[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) 14:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to the redirect history, "Coffee Vision Inc" appears to have been a franchising company that held 40 Starbucks stores in Quebec before 2008. It's completely non-notable and not mentioned in the main Starbucks article. It had a {{prod2}} template, but was redirected instead of deleted, even though the redirector stated that "there isn't anything of sufficient signifcance (sic) in this article to merge into the Starbucks article." This needs to be red to show that we don't have any information on the subject in the off chance someone searches for this. I am also including the child redirects from this former article. -- Tavix (talk) 23:01, 10 September 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.

Agent Carter (season 3)[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) 14:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL violation. No mention of season 3 and season 2 is still in production. Steel1943 (talk) 20:50, 10 September 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.

Byword (example)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 17#Byword (example)

Nepali+kalyan+higher+secondary+school+siliguri[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) 19:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page move to a correct name resulting in an implausible redirect. No one is going to search for this article with the +s in the title. Nick⁠—⁠Contact/Contribs 18:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - implausible error created today and immediately corrected. I have tagged it for WP:G6 because I think WP:R3 doesn't apply here, but this should be uncontroversial maintenance. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:03, 10 September 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.

The West (TV series)[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) 14:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell ... delete per WP:REDLINK. Steel1943 (talk) 17:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as it is not disturbing anything yet, and it'll be created as soon as any other news comes in. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 19:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree since readers will think they are arriving at information about the subject, just to only see a "show name (year)" entry in a specific section on its broadcast station's article. The more appropriate action in this case would be to delete the redirect, list the link to the redirect on the appropriate disambiguation page as a WP:REDLINK entry that meets MOS:DABMENTION (probably in this case by linking AMC (TV channel) somewhere in the entry), then look for other articles where this title can be linked to help promote article creation. Steel1943 (talk) 19:55, 10 September 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.

Untitled Matt Damon/Bourne sequel[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 September 17#Untitled Matt Damon/Bourne sequel

Criticism of Richard Dawkins[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) 14:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a bit NPOV, especially considering that there is no specific section for criticism of Richard Dawkins. It was originally an article with a small amount of content, but it was just redirected. JZCL 17:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - It's not a helpful redirect given that there is no such article as well as no such section. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 20:07, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the title can be construed to mean criticisms espoused by Dawkins, instead of criticism to Dawkins (yes, that is a bit convoluted) -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and let expand instead of mere redirect. Given the plethora of literature on criticism of Richard Dawkins, the title deserves to have an independent article. Unfortunately, a section with similar title is not tolerated in the original article.--Kazemita1 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:POVFORK. Any WP:DUE criticism should be in Richard Dawkins. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 15 September 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.

Escapade (programming language)[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 restore. "Deletion by redirection" is a legitimate action, though subject to the WP:BRD cycle. As a closer, I wouldn't be opposed to deleting such a page after it comes up here, but I would need stronger consensus to do so. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old, apparently non-notable, article reduced to a redirect last December. While I'm not sure I have an immediate opinion on the notability of the programming language (at first glance the old article appears pretty unnotable, and unreferenced), the redirect to List of programming languages is clearly inappropriate. Probably outright deletion of this article is the best idea. Rwessel (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: List of programming languages, as do many list articles, lists only subjects with Wikipedia articles. A circular link to Escapade (programming language) was deleted today (prompting this RfD), presumably the redirect was added on the basis that Escapade was mentioned in the list article. Rwessel (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom: also isn't even at List of programming languages#E. --Rubbish computer 20:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article. I can't find that there was any discussion about converting the article to a redirect, and in such circumstances I'm usually wary of deleting them at RfD whether redirected in good faith or otherwise. This restoration would be without prejudice to AfD should anyone wish to nominate it there. Thryduulf (talk) 21:22, 10 September 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.

Yod-dropping before 'l'[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) 14:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; all these are wrongly constructed (the creator meant to say "after" instead of "before"), are not phrases that occur anywhere else besides Wikipedia and its spawn, and are unnecessary since "yod-dropping" and yod dropping cover all of them. Existence of these red herrings means that when you type in "yod dropping" you see these instead of the link you want. W. P. Uzer (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Appear to be useless. — kwami (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Rubbish computer 20:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These pages began as articles way back in 2005 -- IIRC, they were created by an anon who started countless questionable language-related pages. (I was alerted because I merged them all into a single "Yod-dropping" page, which is now a redirect.) Per nom they clutter search results and cause confusion, and are so unlikely as search terms it's not worth all the problems they cause. szyslak (t) 05:12, 11 September 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.

Farsça[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) 13:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Persian language is not a Turkish-language topic. Gorobay (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - why wouldn't it be? Much of the area that is now Turkey was under the rule of different Persian conquests in antiquity, and the area is relevant now in the geopolitical sphere of modern Persian speakers. Seems harmless. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many things relevant to Persian-speakers that should not have Persian redirects, e.g. the United States. My rule of thumb for whether to delete this sort of redirect is whether the foreign word would be out of place on the target page. Persian language gives its name in itself, English, and a few others to discuss the etymology; it does not mention the Turkish translation and I don’t think it should. I doubt that “Farsça”, unlike the native name, shows up in English-language sources that would prompt English-speaking readers to look it up here. Gorobay (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, that's a very sound rule of thumb. I agree, delete. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above points. --Rubbish computer 20:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see why this could just about be a misinterpretation of Farsi (-> Persian Language, which I think would be the more WP:COMMONNAME in English anyway) but it seems a long way off to me, and WP:RFD#D2 confusing. It looks to me like a C with a cedilla, but I bet it ain't. Si Trew (talk) 04:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actualy it might be. But then really this starts to become a farse. We don't use C cedilla in English to differentate "hard C" from "soft C, both of which redirect to Hard and soft C, so we are just running around the houses here (yes, I can type C cedilla if you insisit, but that just confuses things. dööüüóöóüöóöóöóßöóüéáúűđĐŁy so). WP:NOTENGLISH. Si Trew (talk) 04:05, 13 September 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.

Dr Sexy[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this is a nickname or a film, but whatever it is, it's not mentioned in the article. Delete as confusing. -- Tavix (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was only joking about the retarget to Lenticel (and I am pleased the joke was taken well). Delete'. as all. Si Trew (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the above comments, I doubt that's what someone would be looking for. -- Tavix (talk) 01:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We don't have Dr. Sexy with the stop (period). Whatever we do we should have both or neither, yes? That's why it is a bit WP:RFD#D2 confusing. We don!t have Dr Sex. I am not sure exactly whether stops are supposed to be in abbreviations like "doctor" i learned that if the last letter of the word is the last letter of the abbreviation then it doesn't need a stop, but that is just Usage and Abusage, and Fowler of course. F'rexample, I was told that Mr. for some reasons has a stop but Mrs doesn't, being (which is untrue and also oxymoronic) abbreviations for "Master" and "Mistresss"). I can't help the vageness of English orthography. Si Trew (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can actually do double entry bookkeeping. I actually was trying to improve some bookmaker's articles some year ago, our articles about bookie's odds are in a terrible state. Si Trew (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would it? I have never seen "DR" used to mean "debit" except as a very brief abbreviation on bank statements (on which of course I have only very rarely seen CR to mean "credit"). Your brassic contributor, who can't afford a brassica Si Trew (talk) 03:56, 13 September 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.

The Canterville Ghost (2015 film)[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 11:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as confusing. The article mentions that The Canterville Ghost is "TBD", so any assertions that it is going to be released in 2015 is WP:CRYSTAL, and obviously it wasn't released in 2014... -- Tavix (talk) 03:39, 10 September 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.

Honeymoon with Harry (film)[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, as there isn't any information in Wikipedia about this rumored film. -- Tavix (talk) 03:33, 10 September 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.

Chicagoland (film)[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 both. JohnCD (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL because all the information I'm seeing about this film are rumors. -- Tavix (talk) 03:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • But ... doesn't this rationale only validate deleting a redirect by the name Chicagogo? (...Wait... That exists???) Steel1943 (talk) 20:16, 10 September 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.

Rust (2014 film)[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. It looks like there is a 2010 film of this name, but nothing from 2014. -- Tavix (talk) 03:28, 10 September 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.

Late Bloomer (2014 film)[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. JohnCD (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nonsense. There isn't a 2014 film of this name. -- Tavix (talk) 03:25, 10 September 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.

Old Stoneface (film)[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 retarget Old Stoneface to Old stone face and delete Old Stoneface (film). JohnCD (talk) 11:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. This should be red until there's enough information about the film to create an article. -- Tavix (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Retarget "Old Stoneface" to Old stone face per 70.51.202.113, Delete "Old Stoneface (film)" per nom.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 12:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retarget and delete per Godsy. Rubbish computer 13:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Old stone face was a good find by 70, props to you, because I missed it and I thought I was fairly thorough with my WP:BEFORE. I noticed the darts player when doing research on it, but figured it to either be a minor nickname or an WP:XY situation. Strangely enough, John Lowe is the only one who has that nickname mentioned at his article, so the rest fail WP:DABMENTION at this time. I don't quite have the time right now to do the research, but I'd like to look into the nickname more and verify the other 2-3 names at that dab. If it's a good dab, I feel like it'd be best to move that dab to Old Stoneface as that is how John Lowe's nickname is spelled (both other people would have to spell it the other way to keep it put). If not, Old Stoneface and Old stone face would/should be redirected/retargeted to John Lowe (maybe with hatnotes depending if one one other has the nickname and how prominent it is.) I'll update this post when my research is concluded, but I wanted to get that out there now in case someone knows more than me or has other opinions. -- Tavix (talk) 15:43, 10 September 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_September_10&oldid=1039034634"